'^m-^>ri^^msi'^m 


i^;        ^ 


y 


LINCOLN  ROOM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


•«»^  ^  ■^^••»  ■■      ■•-   '  T«^-i 


/ 


V 


PART  I 

SPEECHES  AND  DEBATES 

1856-1858 


LINCOLN    IN  JUNE,    i860 
From  a  Photogravure  after  a  Portrait  by  C.  A.  Barry 


THE    WORKS    OF 
ABRAHAM       LINCOLN 


Sp 

eeches  and  Debates 

1856 

-1859 

Introductions  and 

Special  Articles 

by 

Ti 

HEGDORE 

Roosevelt 

William    K 

\    Taft 

Ci 

■iARLES    E 

.    Hughes 

Joseph   H. 

Choate 

H 

ENRY    WaTTERSON 

Robert   G. 

Ingersoll 

And 

Others 

Managir 

)g   Editors 

JOHN    H. 

CLIFFORD 

MARION 

M.    MILLER 

Volume   II 

NEWTON  &   CARTWRIGHT 

156    FIFTH    AVENUE,    NEW   YORK 


Copyright,   1907 
By  Current  Literature  Publishing  Company 


Copyright,    1908 
By  The  University  Society  Inc. 


J  1^  0  9-'^ 

CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface vii 

Introduction 

Lincoln  the    Statesman.     By  William   Howard 

XalL  •  •  •  •  •  •  »  •        IJC 

Speeches  (August  i,  1856,  to  July  17,  1858) 

Fragment  of  Speech  at  Galena,  111.,  in  the 
Fremont  Campaign,  in  Reply  to  Objectors  to 
Agitation  Against  the  Extension  of  Slavery. 
About  August  I,  1856         .....       I 

Fragment  of  Speech  in  Fremont  Campaign. 
October  i,  1856 3 

Fragment  of  Speech   at  a  Republican  Banquet 

in  Chicago.     December  10,  1856         ...       9 

Speech  in  Reply  to  Senator  Douglas  at  Spring- 
field, 111.     June  26,  1857 12 

Argument  in  the  Rock  Island  Bridge  Case. 
Extracts  from  a  Report  in  the  Daily  Press  of 
Chicago,  September  24,  1857       .         .         .         .     31 

Notes  of  Argument  in  a  Railroad  Case.  June 
15,   1858 .34 

Speech  in  Acceptance  of  Nomination  as  United 
States  Senator,  Made  at  the  Close  of  the  Re- 
publican State  Convention,  Springfield,  111. 
June  16,  1858 35 

Speech  at  Chicago,  111.    July  10,  1858        .         .     46 

Speech  at  Springfield,  III.    July  17,  1858    .         .     72 

The  Joint  Debate  with  Douglas.    Together  with 
Correspondence  in  Regard  to  the  Debate,  and 
Intervening  Speeches  (July  24  to  October  15,  1858) 
Introduction.     By  Horace  White       .         .         .    loi 


vi  CONTENTS 

Correspondence  in  Regard  to  the  Debate.    July 

24  to  July  31,  1858 116 

Fragment  of  Speech  in  Rejoinder  to  the  Reply 
of  Senator  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  Spring- 
field Speeches  of  June  16  and  July  17,  1858.  De- 
livered at  Beardstown,  111.    August  12,  1858      .   121 

Speech  at  Lewiston,  111.     August  17,  1858         .   125 

First  Joint  Debate,  at  Ottawa,  111.  August  21, 
185S  . 128 

Second  Joint  Debate,  at  Freeport,  111.  August 
27,   1858 174 

Report  of  Speech  at  Clinton,  111.  September  8, 
1858 224 

Fragment  of  Speech  at  Paris,  111.  September  8, 
1858 226 

Fragments  of  Speech  at  Edwardsville,  111.  Sep- 
tember 13,  1858  .         ...         .         .         .  227 

Third  Joint  Debate,  at  Jonesboro,  111.  Septem- 
ber 15,  1858 231 

Fourth  Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston,  III.  Sep- 
tember  18,    1858         .         .         .         .  .         .287 


PREFACE 

Beginning  with  the  speeches  that  Lincoln  de- 
livered in  the  Fremont  campaign  of  1856,  this 
volume  concludes  with  his  opening  address  in  the 
Fourth  Joint  Debate  with  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
w^hich  was  held  at  Charleston,  111.  Between  the 
debates  with  his  great  opponent,  Lincoln  deliv- 
ered several  speeches,  fragments  of  which  were 
taken  down  by  Horace  White,  now  of  the  New 
York  Evening  Post,  and  then  reporter  of  the 
Lincoln-Douglas  debates  for  the  Chicago  Trib- 
une These  are  printed  here  in  their  chrono- 
logical sequence,  as  is  also  the  correspondence 
of  the  principals  preliminary  to  the  Debate. 

Excepting  two  legal  arguments,  all  the 
speeches  in  the  volume  relate  to  the  extension  of 
slavery,  the  burning  political  issue  of  the  time. 
This  had  been  kindled  by  Senator  Douglas's 
Nebraska  Act,  repealing  the  guaranty  in  the  ^lis- 
souri  Compromise  of  free  soil  to  the  new  Terri- 
tories north  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Mis- 
souri, and  had  been  fanned  by  the  Dred  Scott 
Decision  into  a  flame  that  endangered  the  free- 
dom even  of  States  already  established  in  which 
slavery  was  constitutionally  prohibited. 


Vll 


INTRODUCTION 

Lincoln  the  Statesman. 

By  William  Howard  Taft. 

There  are  few  lives  which  seem  to  have  been 
shaped  so  providentially  to  meet  a  country's  great 
need  as  that  of  Lincoln  with  reference  to  slavery 
and  the  Civil  War.  Coming  from  a  childhood  of 
the  greatest  penury  and  discomfort  and  squalor, 
mingling  with  the  humblest  and  the  poorest  in 
a  Western  settlement,  Lincoln  acquired  a  sense  of 
equality  and  democracy  and  a  love  of  equal 
rights  that  never  left  him  and  gave  deep  color  to 
his  whole  life.  His  soul  revolted  at  human  slav- 
ery. He  had  a  tenderness  of  heart  and  a  sym- 
pathy with  his  fellow-man  that  manifested  itself 
in  the  smallest  details  of  his  life,  and  he  had  a 
power  of  putting  himself  in  another's  place  which 
gave  him  a  profound  sense  of  justice.  He  under- 
stood the  play  of  human  nature  as  few  men  have. 
He  knew  the  motives  and  the  things  which  in- 
fluenced the  plain  people  as  no  other  American  in 
our  American  race  of  politicians  has  understood 
them.  He  had  a  sense  of  humor  and  a  power  of 
quaint  expression  and  a  capacity  for  creating 
which  enabled  him  to  give  force  by  homely  illus- 
tration to  the  arguments  which  his  great  power 
of  logic  enabled  him  to  drive  home. 

ix 


X  INTRODUCTION 

GREATEST   POLITICIAN   OF   HIS   AGE 

He  was  the  greatest  politician  of  his  age,  and 
while  he  had  deeply  imbedded  in  his  moral  nature 
the  principles  in  favor  of  human  liberty,  he  did 
not  purpose  to  sacrifice  his  influence  to  bring 
about  the  goal  of  his  whole  life's  ambition  by  go- 
ing so  fast  in  extreme  declarations  of  abstract 
principles  as  to  deprive  him  of  future  usefulness. 
I  have  read  and  reread  with  pleasure  the  story  of 
Lincoln  by  Herndon,  his  partner,  and  noted  with 
intense  interest  his  unwillingness  to  attend  a  meet- 
ing of  abolitionists  lest  he  might  lose  his  influence 
with  the  Whigs,  who  did  not  sympathize  wnth  the 
abolitionists.  Nor  did  he  wish  to  offend  the 
abolitionists.  So  he  made  a  court  engagement 
for  himself  some  twenty  miles  away,  which  made 
it  impossible  for  him  to  attend  the  meeting. 
Now,  it  would  be  easy  to  say  that  this  was  cow- 
ardly, that  this  was  the  trick  of  a  mere  politician, 
but  I  think  we  may  well  ascribe  the  motive  to  a 
desire  not  to  lose  his  usefulness  at  a  time  when 
the  future  seemed  big  with  opportunity  for  him. 
His  whole  life  showed  that,  while  he  had  ideals, 
he  never  allowed  the  longing  for  the  impossible 
to  interfere  with  the  securing  of  the  possible. 

A  PARTY  MAN 

He  w^as  a  party  man,  as  every  man  must  be 
who  wishes  to  leave  his  individual  impress  upon 
the  individual  character  of  the  nation.  I  do  not 
mean  for  a  moment  to  deprecate  independence 
of  party,  or  "mugwumpism,"  because  I  believe 
that  the  independent  vote  on  the  whole  exercises 
more  direct  effect  in  the  election  than  the  party 
vote.     It  must  be  so.     But  while  ail  independent 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

voters  as  a  mass  exercise  more  control  over  the 
decisions  in  an  election,  as  individuals  they  do 
not  do  so.  The  man  who  would  retain  his  indi- 
vidual influence  and  effect  good  measures  in  our 
country,  where  parties  are  a  necessity  in  the 
carrying  on  of  the  Government,  must  be  a  party 
man.  And  no  one  recognizes  this  more  fully 
than  did  Lincoln. 

ECONOMIC    VIEWS 

Lincoln's  economic  views  were  not  distinctly 
marked.  Early  in  his  career  he  favored  internal 
improvements  in  Illinois,  as  a  member  of  the 
Legislature,  to  such  a  point  as  to  involve  the 
State  in  a  heavy  indebtedness,  which  never  in- 
ured largely  to  the  benefit  of  the  people.  His 
mind  was  not  directed,  even  during  the  war,  to 
economic  subjects.  He  safely  delegated  the 
finances  of  the  country  to  his  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Mr.  Chase.  As  a  follower  of  Clay,  he 
was  in  favor  of  the  protective  or  American  sys- 
tem, as  it  was  called.  During  his  administration 
the  Morrill  tariff  was  passed,  for  the  system  of 
protection  to  American  industries  on  the  modern 
plan  was  then  fully  inaugurated. 

THE  DECLARATION   AND  SLAVERY 

Lincoln  relied  greatly  in  his  discussions  on  tlie 
slavery  question  upon  the  terms  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  He  dwelt  upon  the  postu- 
late set  forth  in  that  instrument  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,  and  he  insisted  that,  in  so  far  as 
the  Constitution  recognized  slavery,  and  in  so  far 
as  slavery  was  an  institution  of  our  Government, 
it  was  a  departure  from  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

pendence.  He  maintained  that  the  words  ''all 
men  are  created  equal"  included  the  negro  as  well 
as  the  white  man,  but  affirmed  with  great  empha- 
sis that  he  did  not  mean  that  the  men  who  were 
thus  declared  equal  were  necessarily  fitted  at 
once  to  be  voters  or  take  part  in  the  Government. 
What  he  contended  was  that  they  were  entitled 
to  the  bread  they  earned  and  should  be  given  the 
right  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

Lincoln  was  not  a  man  stiffly  dogmatic.  He 
was  a  man  who  allowed  the  application  of  his 
principles  to  be  controlled  by  the  fitness  of  the 
thing.  His  whole  nature  was  that  of  sweet  rea- 
sonableness and  common  sense. 

It  is  true  that  the  Declaration  recites  that  all 
just  government  must  rely  on  the  consent  of  the 
governed ;  but  that  is  to  be  interpreted  as  mean- 
ing a  consent  of  the  governed  who  have  intel- 
ligence sufficient  to  enable  them  to  discriminate 
as  to  what  is  government  in  their  own  interest. 
Lincoln  in  his  debates  with  Douglas  did  not  in- 
sist that  the  colored  men,  as  they  then  were, 
should  take  part  in  the  Government  as  voters, 
but  he  evidently  treated  the  postulate  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  as  the  ideal  toward 
which  all  government  should  work. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  Mr.  Lincoln  was  so  bit- 
terly opposed  to  slavery,  as  he  said  in  his  con- 
troversy with  Douglas,  was  that  it  was  an  incon- 
sistent blot  upon  our  escutcheon  as  a  free  country, 
and  that  it  robbed  us  of  our  proper  world 
influence  in  favor  of  freedom  and  liberty.  Noth- 
ing could  more  clearly  show  his  desire  that  we, 
among  the  nations  of  the  world,  should  wield  an 
influence  in  favor  of  the  spread  of  free  institu- 
tions and  in  favor  of  international  morality. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

UPHOLDER  OF   THE   LAWS 

The  one  thing  that  distinguished  Lincoln  in  all 
his  life  was  his  contention  in  favor  of  the  equal 
administration  and  protection  of  the  laws.  From 
the  soles  of  his  feet,  through  all  that  long  frame 
to  the  top  of  his  head,  he  was  a  democrat  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word  and  opposed  to  privilege 
and  class  immunity.  He  was  not  an  enemy  of 
wealth  lawfully  accumulated.  He  welcomed  and 
encouraged  internal  improvements,  and  of  course 
favored  prosperity  developed  by  business  enter- 
prises and  the  combinations  of  capital,  but  he  al- 
ways exalted  in  the  consideration  of  every  issue 
the  rights  of  the  individual,  and  especially  of  the 
humbler  members  of  society,  who  were  least  able 
to  protect  themselves. 

Therefore,  we  may  know  with  certainty  that 
cannot  brook  contradiction  that  in  the  struggle 
to  make  all  business  lawful,  to  take  away  from 
great  corporate  combinations  the  illegal  privi- 
leges and  immunities  that  official  investigations 
have  shown  in  many  instances  to  prevail,  Lin- 
coln would  have  made  the  same  good  fight  which 
has  endeared  Roosevelt  to  the  same  plain  people 
of  the  country  who  upheld  the  hands  of  the  mar- 
tyred President  through  all  the  great  trials  of  his 
administration. 


SPEECHES   AND   DEBATES 

(1856-1858) 

"Who  Are  the  Disunionists— You  or  We?" 

Fragment  of  Speech  at  Galena,  III.,  in  the 
Fremont  Campaign,  in  Reply  to  Object- 
ors to  Agitation  Against  the  Extension 
OF  Slavery.    About  August  i,  1856. 

You  further  charge  us  with  being  disunionists. 
If  you  mean  that  it  is  our  aim  to  dissolve  the 
Union,  I  for  myself  answer  that  it  is  untrue ;  for 
those  who  act  with  me  I  answer  that  it  is  untrue. 
Have  you  heard  us  assert  that  as  our  aim?  Do 
you  really  believe  that  such  is  our  aim  ?  Do  you 
find  it  in  our  platform,  our  speeches,  our  con- 
ventions, or  anywhere?  If  not,  withdraw  the 
charge. 

But  you  may  say  that  though  it  is  not  our  aim, 
it  will  be  the  result  if  we  succeed,  and  that  we 
are  therefore  disunionists  in  fact.  This  is  a  grave 
charge  you  make  against  us,  and  we  certainly 
have  a  right  to  demand  that  you  specify  in  what 
way  we  are  to  dissolve  the  Union.  How  are  we 
to  effect  this? 

The  only  specification  offered  is  volunteered 
by  Mr.  Fillmore  in  his  Albany  speech.  His 
charge  is  that  if  we  elect  a  President  and  Vice- 
President  both  from  the  free  States,  it  will  dis- 


2  SPEECHES  [Oct.  1 

solve  the  Union.  This  is  open  folly.  The  Con- 
stitution provides  that  the  President  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  of  differ- 
ent States ;  but  says  nothing  as  to  the  latitude 
and  longitude  of  those  States.  In  1828  Andrew 
Jackson,  of  Tennessee,  and  John  C.  Calhoun,  of 
South  Carolina,  were  elected  President  and  Vice- 
President,  both  from  slave  States ;  but  no  one 
thought  of  dissolving  the  Union  then  on  that  ac- 
count. In  1840  Harrison,  of  Ohio,  and  Tyler,  of 
Virginia,  were  elected.  In  1841  Harrison  died 
and  John  Tyler  succeeded  to  the  Presidency,  and 
William  R.  King,  of  Alabama,  was  elected  acting 
Vice-President  by  the  Senate ;  but  no  one  sup- 
posed that  the  Union  was  in  danger.  In  fact,  at 
the  very  time  Mr.  Fillmore  uttered  his  idle 
charge,  the  state  of  things  in  the  Unitied  States 
disproved  it.  Mr.  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  Mr.  Bright,  of  Indiana,  both  from  free 
States,  are  President  and  Vice-President,  and  the 
Union  stands  and  will  stand.  You  do  not  pre- 
tend that  it  ought  to  dissolve  the  Union,  and  the 
facts  show  that  it  won't;  therefore  the  charge 
may  be  dismissed  without  further  consideration. 
No  other  specification  is  made,  and  the  only 
one  that  could  be  made  is  that  the  restoration  of 
the  restriction  of  1820,  making  the  United  States 
territory  free  territory,  would  dissolve  the  Union. 
Gentlemen,  it  will  require  a  decided  majority  to 
pass  such  an  act.  We,  the  majority,  being  able 
constitutionally  to  do  all  that  we  purpose,  would 
have  no  desire  to  dissolve  the  Union.  Do  you 
say  that  such  restriction  of  slavery  would  be  un- 
constitutional, and  that  some  of  the  States  would 
not  submit  to  its  enforcement  ?  I  grant  you  that 
an  unconstitutional  act  is  not  a  law ;  but  I  do  not 


i8s6]  IN  FREMONT  CAMPAIGN  3 

ask  and  will  not  take  your  construction  of  the 
Constitution.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  is  the  tribunal  to  decide  such  a  question, 
and  we  will  submit  to  its  decisions ;  and  if  you 
do  also,  there  will  be  an  end  of  the  matter.  Will 
you?  If  not,  who  are  the  disunionists — you  or 
we?  We,  the  majority,  would  not  strive  to  dis- 
solve the  Union;  and  if  any  attempt  is  made, 
it  must  be  by  you,  who  so  loudly  stigmatize  us  as 
disunionists.  But  the  Union,  in  any  event,  will 
not  be  dissolved.  We  don't  want  to  dissolve  it, 
and  if  you  attempt  it  we  won't  let  you.  With  the 
purse  and  sword,  the  army  and  navy  and 
treasury,  in  our  hands  and  at  our  command,  you 
could  not  do  it.  This  government  would  be  very 
weak  indeed  if  a  majority  with  a  disciplined  army 
and  navy  and  a  well-filled  treasury  could  not  pre- 
serve itself  when  attacked  by  an  unarmed,  undis- 
ciplined, unorganized  minority.  All  this  talk 
about  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  is  humbug, 
nothing  but  folly.  We  do  not  want  to  dissolve 
the  Union;  you  shall  not. 

Sectionalism  and  Slavery. 

Fragment  of  Speech  in  Fremont  Campaign. 

October  i,  1856. 

It  is  constantly  objected  to  Fremont  and  Day- 
ton, that  they  are  supported  by  a  sectional  party, 
who  by  their  sectionalism  endanger  the  national 
union.  This  objection,  more  than  all  others, 
causes  men  really  opposed  to  slavery  extension 
to  hesitate.  Practically,  it  is  the  most  difficult 
objection  we  have  to  meet.  For  this  reason  I 
now  propose  to  examine  it  a  little  more  carefully 


4  SPEECHES  [Oct.  I 

than  I  have  heretofore  done,  or  seen  it  done  by 
others.  First,  then,  what  is  the  question  between 
the  parties  respectively  represented  by  Buchanan 
and  Fremont?  Simply  this,  "Shall  slavery  be 
allowed  to  extend  into  United  States  territories 
now  legally  free?"  Buchanan  says  it  shall,  and 
Fremont  says  it  shall  not. 

That  is  the  naked  issue,  and  the  whole  of  it. 
Lay  the  respective  platforms  side  by  side,  and  the 
difference  between  them  will  be  found  to  amount 
to  precisely  that.  True,  each  party  charges  upon 
the  other  designs  much  beyond  what  is  involved 
in  the  issue  as  stated ;  but  as  these  charges  cannot 
be  fully  proved  either  way,  it  is  probably  better 
to  reject  them  on  both  sides,  and  stick  to  the 
naked  issue  as  it  is  clearly  made  up  on  the  record. 

And  now  to  restate  the  question,  "Shall  slavery 
be  allowed  to  extend  into  United  States  terri- 
tories now  legally  free  ?"  I  beg  to  know  how  one 
side  of  that  question  is  more  sectional  than  the 
other  ?  Of  course  I  expect  to  effect  nothing  with 
the  man  who  makes  the  charge  of  sectionalism 
without  caring  whether  it  is  just  or  not.  But  of 
the  candid,  fair  man  who  has  been  puzzled  w^ith 
this  charge,  I  do  ask  how  is  one  side  of  this  ques- 
tion more  sectional  than  the  other  ?  I  beg  of  him 
to  consider  well,  and  answer  calmly. 

If  one  side  be  as  sectional  as  the  other,  nothing 
is  gained,  as  to  sectionalism,  by  changing  sides ; 
so  that  each  must  choose  sides  of  the  question  on 
some  other  ground,  as  I  should  think,  according 
as  the  one  side  or  the  other  shall  appear  nearest 
right.  If  he  shall  really  think  slavery  ought  to 
be  extended,  let  him  go  to  Buchanan ;  if  he  think 
it  ought  not,  let  him  go  to  Fremont. 

But  Fremont  and  Dayton  are  both  residents  of 


1856]  IN  FREMONT  CAMPAIGN  5 

the  free  States,  and  this  fact  has  been  vaunted  in 
high  places  as  excessive  sectionalism.  While  in- 
terested individuals  become  indignant  and  excited 
against  this  manifestation  of  sectionalism,  I  am 
very  happy  to  know  that  the  Constitution  remains 
calm — keeps  cool — upon  the  subject.  It  does  say 
that  President  and  Vice-President  shall  be  resi- 
dents of  different  States,  but  it  does  not  say  that 
one  must  live  in  a  slave  and  the  other  in  a  free 
State. 

It  has  been  a  custom  to  take  one  from  a  slave 
and  the  other  from  a  free  State;  but  the  custom 
has  not  at  all  been  uniform.  In  1828  General 
Jackson  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  both  from  slave 
States,  were  placed  on  the  same  ticket ;  and 
Mr.  Adams  and  Dr.  Rush,  both  from  free 
States,  were  pitted  against  them.  General  Jack- 
son and  Mr.  Calhoun  were  elected,  and  qualified 
and  served  under  the  election,  yet  the  whole  thing 
never  suggested  the  idea  of  sectionalism.  In 
1841,  the  President,  General  Harrison,  died,  by 
which  Mr.  Tyler,  the  Vice-President  and  a  slave- 
State  man,  became  President.  Mr.  Mangum,  an- 
other slave-State  man,  was  placed  in  the  vice- 
presidential  chair,  served  out  the  term,  and  no 
fuss  about  it,  no  sectionalism  thought  of.  In 
1853  the  present  President  came  into  office.  He 
is  a  free-State  man.  Mr.  King,  the  new  Vice- 
President-elect,  was  a  slave-State  man ;  but  he 
died  without  entering  on  the  duties  of  his  office. 
At  first  his  vacancy  was  filled  by  Atchison,  an- 
other slave-State  man ;  but  he  soon  resigned,  and 
the  place  was  supplied  by  Bright,  a  free-State 
man.  So  that  right  now,  and  for  the  half  year 
last  past,  our  President  and  Vice-President  are 
both  actually  free-State  men.     But  it  is  said  the 


6  SPEECHES  [Oct.  i 

friends  of  Fremont  avow  the  purpose  of  electing 
him  exclusively  by  free-State  votes,  and  that  this 
is  unendurable  sectionalism. 

This  statement  of  fact  is  not  exactly  true. 
With  the  friends  of  Fremont  it  is  an  expected 
necessity,  but  it  is  not  an  "avowed  purpose,"  to 
elect  him,  if  at  all,  principally  by  free-State  votes ; 
but  it  is  with  equal  intensity  true  that  Buchanan's 
friends  expect  to  elect  him,  if  at  all,  chiefly  by 
slave-State  votes.  Here,  again,  the  sectionalism 
is  just  as  much  on  one  side  as  the  other. 

The  thing  which  gives  most  color  to  the  charge 
of  sectionalism,  made  against  those  who  oppose 
the  spread  of  slavery  into  free  territory,  is  the 
fact  that  they  can  get  no  votes  in  the  slave  States, 
while  their  opponents  get  all,  or  nearly  so,  in  the 
slave  States,  and  also  a  large  number  in  the  free 
States.  To  state  it  in  another  way,  the  exten- 
sionists  can  get  votes  all  over  the  nation,  while 
the  restrictionists  can  get  them  only  in  the  free 
States. 

This  being  the  fact,  why  is  it  so  ?  It  is  not  be- 
cause one  side  of  the  question  dividing  them  is 
more  sectional  than  the  other,  nor  because  of  any 
difference  in  the  mental  or  moral  structure  of  the 
people  North  and  South.  It  is  because  in  that 
question  the  people  of  the  South  have  an  imme- 
diate palpable  and  immensely  great  pecuniary  in- 
terest, while  with  the  people  of  the  North  it  is 
merely  an  abstract  question  of  moral  right,  with 
only  slight  and  remote  pecuniary  interest  added. 

The  slaves  of  the  South,  at  a  moderate  esti- 
mate, are  worth  a  thousand  millions  of  dollars. 
Let  it  be  permanently  settled  that  this  property 
may  extend  to  new  territory  without  restraint, 
and  it  greatly  enhances,  perhaps  quite  doubles,. 


i856]  IN  FREMONT  CAMPAIGN  7 

its  value  at  once.  This  immense  palpable  pecuni- 
ary interest  on  the  question  of  extending  slavery- 
unites  the  Southern  people  as  one  man.  But  it 
cannot  be  demonstrated  that  the  North  will  gain 
a  dollar  by  restricting  it.  Moral  principle  is  all, 
or  nearly  all,  that  unites  us  of  the  North.  Pity  'tis, 
it  is  so,  but  this  is  a  looser  bond  than  pecuniary 
interest.  Right  here  is  the  plain  cause  of  their 
perfect  union  and  our  want  of  it.  And  see  how 
it  works.  If  a  Southern  man  aspires  to  be  Presi- 
dent, they  choke  him  down  constantly,  in  order 
that  the  glittering  prize  of  the  presidency  may  be 
held  up  on  Southern  terms  to  the  greedy  eyes  of 
Northern  ambition.  With  this  they  tempt  us  and 
break  in  upon  us. 

The  Democratic  party  in  1844  elected  a  South- 
ern President.  Since  then  they  have  neither  had 
a  Southern  candidate  for  election  nor  nomina- 
tion. Their  conventions  of  1848,  1852  and  1856 
have  been  struggles  exclusively  among  Northern 
men,  each  vying  to  outbid  the  other  for  the 
Southern  vote ;  the  South  standing  calmly  by  to 
finally  cry  "Going,  going,  gone"  to  the  highest 
bidder,  and  at  the  same  time  to  make  its  power 
more  distinctly  seen,  and  thereby  to  secure  a  still 
higher  bid  at  the  next  succeeding  struggle. 

"Actions  speak  louder  than  words"  is  the  max- 
im, and  if  true  the  South  now  distinctly  says 
to  the  North,  "Give  us  the  measures  and  you  take 
the  men."  The  total  withdrawal  of  Southern  as- 
pirants for  the  presidency  multiplies  the  number 
of  Northern  ones.  These  last,  in  competing  with 
each  other,  commit  themselves  to  the  utmost 
verge  that,  through  their  own  greediness,  they 
have  the  least  hope  their  Northern  supporters 
will  bear.     Having  got  committed  in  a  race  of 


8  SPEECHES  [Dec.  lo 

competition,  necessity  drives  them  into  union  to 
sustain  themselves.  Each  at  first  secures  all  he 
can  on  personal  attachments  to  him  and  through 
hopes  resting  on  him  personally.  Next  they 
unite  with  one  another  and  with  the  perfectly 
banded  South,  to  make  the  offensive  position 
they  have  got  into  *'a  party  measure."  This  done, 
large  additional  numbers  are  secured. 

When  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  first  proposed,  at  the  North,  there  was  liter- 
ally "nobody"  in  favor  of  it.  In  February,  1854, 
our  legislature  met  in  called,  or  extra,  session. 
From  them  Douglas  sought  an  indorsement  of 
his  then  pending  measure  of  repeal.  In  our  legis- 
lature were  about  seventy  Demvocrats  to  thirty 
Whigs.  The  former  held  a  caucus,  in  which  it 
was  resolved  to  give  Douglas  the  desired  indorse- 
ment. Seme  of  the  members  of  the  caucus 
bolted, — would  not  stand  it, — and  they  now 
divulge  the  secrets.  They  say  that  the  caucus 
fairly  confessed  that  the  repeal  was  wrong,  and 
they  pleaded  the  determination  to  indorse  it  solely 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  necessary  to  sustain 
Douglas.  Here  we  have  the  direct  evidence  of 
how  the  Nebraska  bill  obtained  its  strength  in 
Illinois.  It  was  given,  not  in  a  sense  of  right, 
but  "in  the  teeth  of  a  sense  of  wrong,  to  sustain 
Douglas.  So  Illinois  was  divided.  So  New  Eng- 
land for  Pierce,  Michigan  for  Cass,  Pennsylvania 
for  Buchanan,  and  all  for  the  Democratic  party. 

And  when  by  such  means  they  have  got  a  large 
portion  of  the  Northern  people  into  a  position 
contrary  to  their  own  honest  impulses  and  sense 
ot  right,  they  have  the  impudence  to  turn  upon 
these  who  do  stand  firm,  and  call  them  sectional. 
W^re  it  not  too  serious  a  matter,  this  cool  impu- 


1856]  AT  CHICAGO  BANQUET  9 

dence  would  be  laughable,  to  say  the  least.  Re- 
curring to  the  question,  "Shall  slavery  be  allowed 
to  extend  into  United  States  territory  now  legally 
free?"  This  is  a  sectional  Question — that  is  to 
say,  it  is  a  question  in  its  nature  calculated  to 
divide  the  American  people  geographically. 
Who  is  to  blame  for  that?  Who  can  help  it? 
Either  side  can  help  it ;  but  how  ?  Simply  by 
yielding  to  the  other  side ;  there  is  no  other  way ; 
in  the  whole  range  of  possibility  there  is  no  other 
way.  Then,  which  side  shall  yield  ?  To  this, 
again,  there  can  be  but  one  answer, — the  side 
which  is  in  the  wrong.  True,  we  differ  as  to 
which  side  is  wrong,  and  we  boldly  say,  let  all 
who  really  think  slavery  ought  to  be  spread  into 
free  territory,  openly  go  over  against  us ;  there  is 
where,  they  rightfully  belong.  But  why  should 
any  go  who  really  think  slavery  ought  not  to 
spread  ?  Do  they  really  think  the  right  ought  to 
yield  to  the  wrong?  Are  they  afraid  to  stand  by 
the  right  ?  Do  they  fear  that  the  Constitution  is 
too  weak  to  sustain  them  in  the  right?  Do  they 
really  think  that  by  right  surrendering  to  wrong 
the  hopes  of  our  Constitution,  our  Union,  and 
our  liberties  can  possibly  be  bettered? 

The    Foundation    of    American    Democracy: 
Equality  Not  of  States  but  of  Men. 

Fragment  of  Speech  at  a  Republican  Ban- 
quet IN  Chicago.     December  10,  1856. 

We  have  another  annual  presidential  message. 
Like  a  rejected  lover  making  merry  at  the  wed- 
ding of  his  rival,  the  President  felicitates  himself 
hugely  over  the  late  presidential   election.     He 


lO  SPEECHES  [Dec.  lo 

considers  the  result  a  signal  triumph  of  good 
principles  and  good  men,  and  a  very  pointed  re- 
buke of  bad  ones.  He  says  the  people  did  it.  He 
forgets  that  the  ''people,"  as  he  complacently  calls 
only  those  who  voted  for  Buchanan,  are  in  a 
minority  of  the  whole  people  by  about  four  hun- 
dred thousand  votes — one  full  tenth  of  all  the 
votes.  Remembering  this,  he  might  perceive  that 
the  "rebuke"  may  not  be  quite  as  durable  as  he 
seems  to  think — that  the  majority  may  not  choose 
to  remain  permanently  rebuked  by  that  minority. 

The  President  thinks  the  great  body  of  us  Fre- 
monters,  being  ardently  attached  to  liberty,  in 
the  abstract,  were  duped  by  a  few  wicked  and 
designing  men.  There  is  a  slight  difference  of 
opinion  on  this.  We  think  he,  being  ardently  at- 
tached to  the  hope  of  a  second  term,  in  the  con- 
crete, was  duped  by  men  who  had  liberty  every 
way.  He  is  the  cat's-paw.  By  much  dragging  of 
chestnuts  from  the  fire  for  others  to  eat,  his  claws 
are  burnt  off  to  the  gristle,  and  he  is  thrown 
aside  as  unfit  for  further  use.  As  the  fool  said 
of  King  Lear,  when  his  daughters  had  turned 
him  out  of  doors,  ''He's  a  shelled  peascod"^ 
Y'Thafs  a  sheaVd  peascod'']. 

So  far  as  the  President  charges  us  "with  a  de- 
sire to  change  the  domestic  institutions  of  exist- 
ing States,"  and  of  "doing  everything  in  our 
power  to  deprive  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
of  moral  authority,"  for  the  whole  party  on  be- 
lief, and  for  myself  on  knowledge,  I  pronounce 
the  charge  an  unmixed  and  unmitigated  false- 
hood. 

Our  government  rests  in  public  opinion.  Who- 
ever can  change  public  opinion  can  change  the 
government    practically    just    so    much.     Public 


i856]  AT  CHICAGO  BANQUET  n 

opinion,  on  any  subject,  always  has  a  "central 
idea,"  from  which  all  its  minor  thoughts  radiate. 
That  ''central  idea"  in  our  political  public  opinion 
at  the  beginning  was,  and  until  recently  has  con- 
tinued to  be,  "the  equality  of  men."  And  al- 
though it  has  always  submitted  patiently  to  what- 
ever of  inequality  there  seemed  to  be  as  matter 
of  actual  necessity,  its  constant  working  has  been 
a  steady  progress  toward  the  practical  equality  of 
all  men.  The  late  presidential  election  was  a 
struggle  by  one  party  to  discard  that  central  idea 
and  to  substitute  for  it  the  opposite  idea  that 
slavery  is  right  in  the  abstract,  the  workings  of 
which  as  a  central  idea  may  be  the  perpetuity  of 
human  slavery  and  its  extension  to  all  countries 
and  colors.  Less  than  a  year  ago  the  Richmond 
Enquirer,  an  avowed  advocate  of  slavery,  re- 
gardless of  color,  in  order  to  favor  his  views, 
invented  the  phrase  "State  equality,"  and  now 
the  President,  in  his  message,  adopts  the  En- 
quirer's catch-phrase,  telling  us  the  people  "have 
asserted  the  constitutional  equality  of  each  and 
all  of  the  States  of  the  Union  as  States."  The 
President  flatters  himself  that  the  new  central 
idea  is  completely  inaugurated;  and  so  indeed  it 
is,  so  far  as  the  mere  fact  of  a  presidential  elec- 
tion can  inaugurate  it.  To  us  it  is  left  to  know 
that  the  majority  of  the  people  have  not  yet  de- 
clared for  it,  and  to  hope  that  they  never  will. 
All  of  us  who  did  not  vote  for  Mr.  Buchanan, 
taken  together,  are  a  majority  of  four  hundred 
thousand.  But  in  the  late  contest  we  were  di- 
vided between  Fremont  and  Fillmore.  Can  we 
not  come  together  for  the  future  ?  Let  every  one 
who  really  believes,  and  is  resolved,  that  free  so- 
ciety is  not  and  shall  not  be  a  failure,  and  who 


12  SPEECHES  [June  2S 

can  conscientiously  declare  that  in  the  past  con- 
test he  has  done  only  what  he  thought  best — let 
every  such  one  have  charity  to  believe  that  every 
other  one  can  say  as  much.  Thus  let  bygones  be 
bygones ;  let  past  differences  as  nothing  be ;  and 
with  steady  eye  on  the  real  issue,  let  us  rein- 
augurate  the  good  old  ''central  ideas"  of  the  re- 
public. We  can  do  it.  The  human  heart  is  with 
us ;  God  is  with  us.  We  shall  again  be  able  not  to 
declare  that  ''all  States  as  States  are  equal,"  nor 
yet  that  "all  citizens  as  citizens  are  equal,"  but  to 
renew  the  broader,  better  declaration,  including 
both  these  and  much  more,  that  "all  men  are  cre- 
ated equal." 

Self-Government  in  the  Territories;  the  Dred 
Scott  Decision ;  and  the  Meaning  of  Equal- 
ity in  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Speech    in   Reply   to   Senator  Douglas,   at 
Springfield,  III.     June  26,  1857. 

Fellozv-citizens:  I  am  here  to-night,  partly  by 
the  invitation  of  some  of  you,  and  partly  by  my 
own  inclination.  Two  weeks  ago  Judge  Douglas 
spoke  here  on  the  several  subjects  of  Kansas,  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  and  Utah.  I  listened  to  the 
speech  at  the  time,  and  have  the  report  of  it  since. 
It  was  intended  to  controvert  opinions  which  I 
think  just,  and  to  assail  (politically,  not  person- 
ally) those  men  who,  in  common  with  me,  enter- 
tain those  opinions.  For  this  reason  I  wished 
then,  and  still  wish,  to  make  some  answer  to  it, 
which  I  now  take  the  opportunity  of  doing. 

I  begin  with  Utah.  If  it  prove  to  be  true,  as 
is  probable,  that  the  people  of  Utah  are  in  open 


i857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  i7 

rebellion  against  the  United  States,  then  Judge 
Douglas  is  in  favor  of  repealing  their  territorial 
organization,  and  attaching  them  to  the  adjoining 
States  for  judicial  purposes.  I  say,  too,  if  they 
are  in  rebellion,  they  ought  to  be  somehow  co- 
erced to  obedience ;  and  I  am  not  now  prepared  to 
admit  or  deny  that  the  judge's  mode  of  coercing 
them  is  not  as  good  as  any.  The  Republicans 
can  fall  in  with  it  without  taking  back  anything 
they  have  ever  said.  To  be  sure,  it  would  be  a 
considerable  backing  down  by  Judge  Douglas 
from  his  much-vaunted  doctrine  of  self-govern- 
ment for  the  Territories ;  but  this  is  only  addi- 
tional proof  of  what  was  very  plain  from  the  be- 
ginning, that  that  doctrine  was  a  mere  deceitful 
pretense  for  the  benefit  of  slavery.  Those  who 
could  not  see  that  much  in  the  Nebraska  act  itself, 
which  forced  governors,  and  secretaries,  and 
judges  on  the  people  of  the  Territories  without 
their  choice  or  consent,  could  not  be  made  to  see, 
though  one  should  rise  from  the  dead. 

But  in  all  this,  it  is  very  plain  the  judge  evades 
the  only  question  the  Republicans  have  ever 
pressed  upon  the  Democracy  in  regard  to  Utah. 
That  question  the  judge  well  knew  to  be  this  : 
"If  the  people  of  Utah  shall  peacefully  form  a 
State  constitution  tolerating  polygamy,  will  the 
Democracy  admit  them  into  the  Union?"  There 
is  nothing  in  the  United  States  Constitution  or 
law  against  polygamy;  and  why  is  it  not  a  part 
of  the  judge's  ''sacred  right  of  self-government" 
for  the  people  to  have  it,  or  rather  to  keep  it,  if 
they  choose  ?  These  questions,  so  far  as  I  know, 
the  judge  never  answers.  It  might  involve  the 
Democracy  to  answer  them  either  way,  and  they 
go  unanswered. 


14 


SPEECHES  [June  2S 


Kansas. 

As  to  Kansas.  The  substance  of  the  judge's 
speech  on  Kansas  is  an  effort  to  put  the  free- 
State  men  in  the  wrong  for  not  voting  at  the 
election  of  delegates  to  the  constitutional  con- 
vention. He  says :  ''There  is  every  reason  to 
hope  and  believe  that  the  law  will  be  fairly  in- 
terpreted and  impartially  executed,  so  as  to  in- 
sure to  every  bona  Ude  inhabitant  the  free  and 
quiet  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise." 

It  appears  extraordinary  that  Judge  Douglas 
should  make  such  a  statement.  He  knows  that, 
by  the  law,  no  one  can  vote  who  has  not  been 
registered ;  and  he  knows  that  the  free-State  men 
place  their  refusal  to  vote  on  the  ground  that  but 
few  of  them  have  been  registered.  It  is  possible 
that  this  is  not  true,  but  Judge  Douglas  knows  it 
is  asserted  to  be  true  in  letters,  newspapers,  and 
public  speeches,  and  borne  by  every  mail  and 
blown  by  every  breeze  to  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the 
world.  He  knows  it  is  boldly  declared  that  the 
people  of  many  whole  counties,  and  many  whole 
neighborhoods  in  others,  are  left  unregistered  ; 
yet  he  does  not  venture  to  contradict  the  declara- 
tion, or  to  point  out  how  they  can  vote  without 
being  registered;  but  he  just  slips  along,  not 
seeming  to  know  there  is  any  such  question  of 
fact,  and  complacently  declares :  ''There  is  every 
reason  to  hope  and  believe  that  the  law  will  be 
fairly  and  impartially  executed,  so  as  to  insure  to 
every  bona  Ude  inhabitant  the  free  and  quiet  ex- 
ercise of  the  elective  franchise." 

I  readily  agree  that  if  all  had  a  chance  to  vote, 
they  ought  to  have  voted.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
as  they  allege,  and  Judge  Douglas  ventures  not  to 
particularly  contradict,  few  only  of  the  free-State 


i857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  15 

men  had  a  chance  to  vote,  they  were  perfectly 
right  in  staying  from  the  polls  in  a  body. 

By  the  way,  since  the  judge  spoke,  the  Kan- 
sas election  has  come  off.  The  judge  expressed 
his  confidence  that  all  the  Democrats  in  Kansas 
would  do  their  duty — including  "free-State  Dem- 
ocrats," of  course.  The  returns  received  here  as 
yet  are  very  incomplete ;  but  so  far  as  they  go, 
they  indicate  that  only  about  one-sixth  of  th^ 
registered  voters  have  really  voted ;  and  this,  too, 
when  not  more,  perhaps,  than  one  half  of  the 
rightful  voters  have  been  registered,  thus  show- 
ing the  thing  to  have  been  altogether  the  most 
exquisite  farce  ever  enacted.  I  am  watching  with 
considerable  interest  to  ascertain  what  figure  ''the 
free-State  Democrats"  cut  in  the  concern.  Of 
course  they  voted, — all  Democrats  do  their  duty, 
— and  of  course  they  did  not  vote  for  slave-State 
candidates.  We  soon  shall  know  how  many  dele- 
gates they  elected,  how  many  candidates  they  had 
pledged  to  a  free  State,  and  how  many  votes  were 
cast  for  them. 

Allow  me  to  barely  whisper  my  suspicion  that 
there  were  no  such  things  in  Kansas  as  ''free- 
State  Democrats" — that  they  were  altogether 
mythical,  good  only  to  figure  in  newspapers  and 
speeches  in  the  free  States.  If  there  should  prove 
to  be  one  real  living  free-State  Democrat  in  Kan- 
sas, I  suggest  that  it  might  be  well  to  catch  him, 
and  stuff  and  preserve  his  skin  as  an  interesting 
specimen  of  that  soon-to-be-extinct  variety  of 
the  genus  Democrat. 

The  Dred  Scott  Decision. 

And  now  as  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  That 
decision  declares  two  propositions — first,  that  a 


1 6  SPEECHES  [June  26 

negro  cannot  sue  in  the  United  States  courts; 
and  secondly,  that  Congress  cannot  prohibit 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  It  was  made  by  a 
divided  court — dividing  differently  on  the  differ- 
ent points.  Judge  Douglas  does  not  discuss  the 
merits  of  the  decision,  and  in  that  respect  I  shall 
follow  his  example,  believing  I  could  no  more 
improve  on  ^McLean  and  Curtis  than  he  could  on 
Taney. 

He  denounces  all  who  question  the  correctness 
of  that  decision,  as  offering  violent  resistance  to 
it.  But  who  resists  it?  Who  has,  in  spite  of  the 
decision,  declared  Dred  Scott  free,  and  resisted 
the  authority  of  his  master  over  him? 

Judicial  decisions  have  two  uses — first,  to  abso- 
lutely determine  the  case  decided ;  and  secondly, 
to  indicate  to  the  public  how  other  similar  cases 
will  be  decided  when  they  arise.  For  the  later  use, 
they  are  called  "precedents"  and  "authorities." 

We  believe  as  much  as  Judge  Douglas  (per- 
haps more)  in  obedience  to,  and  respect  for,  the 
judicial  department  of  government.  We  think  its 
decisions  on  constitutional  questions,  when  fully 
settled,  should  control  not  only  the  particular 
cases  decided,  but  the  general  policy  of  the  coun- 
try, subject  to  be  disturbed  only  by  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  as  provided  in  that  instrument 
itself.  Alore  than  this  would  be  revolution.  But 
we  think  the  Dred  Scott  decision  is  erroneous. 
We  know  the  court  that  made  it  has  often  over- 
ruled its  own  decisions,  and  we  shall  do  what  we 
can  to  have  it  to  overrule  this.  We  offer  no  re- 
sistance to  it. 

Judicial  decisions  are  of  greater  or  less  author- 
ity as  precedents  according  to  circumstances. 
That  this  should  be  so  accords  both  with  com- 


iSo/]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  17 

mon  sense  and  the  customary  understanding  of 
the  legal  profession. 

If  this  important  decision  had  been  made  by 
the  unanimous  concurrence  of  the  judges,  and 
without  any  apparent  partisan  bias,  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  legal  public  expectation  and  with 
the  steady  practice  of  the  departm^ents  through- 
out our  history,  and  had  been  in  no  part  based 
on  assumed  historical  facts  which  are  not  really 
true ;  or,  if  wanting  in  some  of  these,  it  had  been 
before  the  court  more  than  once,  and  had  there 
been  affirmicd  and  reaffirmed  through  a  course  of 
years,  it  then  might  be,  perhaps  would  be,  fac- 
tious, nay,  even  revolutionary,  not  to  acquiesce  in 
it  as  a  precedent. 

But  when,  as  is  true,  we  find  it  wanting  in  all 
these  claims  to  the  public  confidence,  it  is  not  re- 
sistance, it  is  not  factious,  it  is  not  even  disre- 
spectful, to  treat  it  as  not  having  yet  quite  es- 
tablished a  settled  doctrine  for  the  country.  But 
Judge  Douglas  considers  this  view  awful.  Hear 
him : 

The  courts  are  the  tribunals  prescribed  by  the  Con- 
stitution and  created  by  the  authority  of  the  people  to 
determine,  expound,  and  enforce  the  law.  Hence,  who- 
ever resists  the  final  decision  of  the  highest  judicial 
tribunal  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  our  whole  republican  sys- 
tem of  government — a  blow  which,  if  successful,  would 
place  all  our  rights  and  liberties  at  the  mercy  of  pas- 
sion, anarchy,  and  violence.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  if 
resistance  to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  a  matter  like  the  points  decided  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case,  clearly  within  their  jurisdiction  as  de- 
fined by  the  Constitution,  shall  be  forced  upon  the 
country  as  a  political  issue,  it  will  become  a  distinct  and 
naked  issue  between  the  friends  and  enemies  of  the 
Constitution — the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  the  su- 
premacy of  the  laws. 


1 8  SPEECHES  [June  26 

Why,  this  same  Supreme  Court  onse  decided  a 
national  bank  to  be  constitutional ;  but  General 
Jackson,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  dis- 
regarded the  decision,  and  vetoed  a  bill  for  a  re- 
charter,  partly  on  constitutional  ground  declaring 
that  each  public  functionary  must  support  the 
Constitution,  *'as  he  understands  it."  But  hear 
the  general's  own  words.  Here  they  are,  taken 
from  his  veto  message : 

It  is  maintained  by  the  advocates  of  the  bank,  that  its 
constitutionality,  in  all  its  features,  ought  to  be  consid- 
ered as  settled  by  precedent,  and  by  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  To  this  conclusion  I  cannot  assent. 
Mere  precedent  is  a  dangerous  source  of  authority,  and 
should  not  be  regarded  as  deciding  questions  of  consti- 
tutional power,  except  where  the  acquiescence  of  the 
people  and  the  States  can  be  considered  as  well  settled. 
So  far  from  this  being  the  case  on  this  subject,  an 
argument  against  the  bank  might  be  based  on  prece- 
dent. One  Congress,  in  1791,  decided  in  favor  of  a 
bank;  another,  in  181 1,  decided  against  it.  One  Con- 
gress, in  1815,  decided  against  a  bank;  another,  in  1816, 
decided  in  its  favor.  Prior  to  the  present  Congress, 
therefore,  the  precedents  drawn  from  that  source  were 
equal.  If  we  resort  to  the  States,  the  expressions  of 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  opinions  against  the 
bank  have  been  probably  to  those  in  its  favor  as  four  to 
one.  There  is  nothing  in  precedent,  therefore,  which, 
if  its  authority  were  admitted,  ought  to  weigh  in  favor 
of  the  act  before  me. 

I  drop  the  quotations  merely  to  remark  that  all 
there  ever  was  in  the  way  of  precedent  up  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  on  the  points  therein  de- 
cided, had  been  against  that  decision.  But  hear 
General  Jackson  further : 

If  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  covered  the 
whole  ground  of  this  act,  it  ought  not  to  control  the 
coordinate  authorities  of  this  government.  The  Con- 
gress, the  executive,  and  the  court  must,  each  for  itself, 


i857l  AT  SPRINGFIELD  19 

be  guided  by  its  own  opinion  of  the  Constitution.  Each 
pubHc  officer  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands 
it,  and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others. 

Again  and  again  have  I  heard  Judge  Douglas 
denounce  that  bank  decision  and  applaud  General 
Jackson  for  disregarding  it.  It  would  be  inter- 
esting for  him  to  look  over  his  recent  speech, 
and  see  how  exactly  his  fierce  philippics  against 
us  for  resisting  Supreme  Court  decisions  fall 
upon  his  ov/n  head.  It  will  call  to  mind  a  long 
and  fierce  political  war  in  this  country,  upon  an 
issue  which,  in  his  own  language,  and,  of  course, 
in  his  own  changeless  estimation,  was  "a  distinct 
issue  between  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  the 
Constitution,"  and  in  which  war  he  fought  in  the 
ranks  of  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution. 

I  have  said,  in  substance,  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  in  part  based  on  assumed  historical 
facts  which  were  not  really  true,  and  I  ought  not 
to  leave  the  subject  without  giving  some  reasons 
for  saying  this ;  I  therefore  give  an  instance  or 
two,  which  I  think  fully  sustain  me.  Chief  Jus- 
tice Taney,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  court,  insists  at  great  length  that 
negroes  were  no  part  of  the  people  who  made, 
or  for  whom  was  made,  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, or  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

On  the  contrary,  Judge  Curtis,  in  his  dissent- 
ing opinion,  shows  that  in  five  of  the  then  thirteen 
States — to  wit,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  North  Carolina — 
free  negroes  were  voters,  and  in  proportion  to 
their  numbers  had  the  same  part  in  making  the 


20  SPEECHES  CJune  26 

Constitution  that  the  white  people  had.  He 
shows  this  with  so  much  particularity  as  to  leave 
no  doubt  of  its  truth :  and  as  a  sort  of  conclusion 
on  that  point,  holds  the  following  language : 

The  Constitution  was  ordained  and  established  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  through  the  action,  in  each 
State,  of  those  persons  who  were  qualified  by  its  laws  to 
act  thereon  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  all  other  citi- 
zens of  the  State.  In  some  of  the  States,  as  we  have 
seen,  colored  persons  were  among  those  qualified  by  law 
to  act  on  the  subject.  These  colored  persons  were  not 
only  included  in  the  body  of  "the  people  of  the  United 
States"  by  whom  the  Constitution  was  ordained  and 
established ;  but  in  at  least  five  of  the  States  they  had 
the  power  to  act,  and  doubtless  did  act,  by  their  suf- 
frages, upon  the  question  of  its  adoption. 

Again,  Chief  Justice  Taney  says  : 

It  is  difficult  at  this  day  to  realize  the  state  of  public 
opinion,  in  relation  to  that  unfortunate  race,  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  civilized  and  enlightened  portions  of  the 
world  at  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
and  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
framed  and  adopted. 

And  again,  after  quoting  from  the  Declaration, 
he  says : 

The  general  words  above  quoted  would  seem  to  in- 
clude the  whole  human  family,  and  if  they  were  used  in 
a  similar  instrument  at  this  day,  would  be  so  under- 
stood. 

In  these  the  Chief  Justice  does  not  directly  as- 
sert, but  plainly  assumes,  as  a  fact,  that  the  pub- 
lic estimate  of  the  black  man  is  more  favorable 
now  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Revolution. 
This  assumption  is  a  mistake.  In  some  trifling 
particulars  the  condition  of  that  race  has  been 
ameliorated ;  but  as  a  whole,  in  this  country,  the 


1857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  21 

change  between  then  and  now  is  decidedly  the 
other  way;  and  their  ultimate  destiny  has  never 
appeared  so  hopeless  as  in  the  last  three  or  four 
years.  In  two  of  the  five  States — New  Jersey 
and  North  Carolina — that  then  gave  the  free  ne- 
gro the  right  of  voting,  which  right  has  since  been 
taken  away,  and  in  a  third — New  York — it  has 
been  greatly  abridged ;  while  it  has  not  been  ex- 
tended, so  far  as  I  know,  to  a  single  additional 
State,  though  the  number  of  the  States  has  more 
than  doubled.  In  those  days,  as  I  understand, 
masters  could,  at  their  own  pleasure,  emancipate 
their  slaves;  but  since  then  such  legal  restraints 
have  been  made  upon  emancipation  as  to  amount 
almost  to  prohibition.  In  those  days  legislatures 
held  the  unquestioned  power  to  abolish  slavery 
in  their  respective  States,  but  now  it  is  becoming 
quite  fashionable  for  State  constitutions  to  with- 
hold that  power  from  the  legislatures.  In  those 
days,  by  common  consent,  the  spread  of  the  black 
man's  bondage  to  the  new  countries  was  prohib- 
ited, but  now  Congress  decides  that  it  will  not 
continue  the  prohibition,  and  the  Supreme  Court 
decides  that  it  could  not  if  it  would.  In  those 
days  our  Declaration  of  Independence  was  held 
sacred  by  all,  and  thought  to  include  all ;  but  now, 
to  aid  in  making  the  bondage  of  the  negro  uni- 
versal and  eternal,  it  is  assailed  and  sneered  at 
and  construed,  and  hawked  at  and  torn,  till,  if  its 
framers  could  rise  from  their  graves,  they  could 
not  at  all  recognize  it.  All  the  powers  of  earth 
seem  rapidly  combining  against  him.  Mammon 
is  after  him,  ambition  follows,  philosophy  fol- 
lows, and  the  theology  of  the  day  is  fast  joining 
the  cry.  They  have  him  in  his  prison-house ; 
they  have  searched  his  person,  and  left  no  prying 


2  2  SPEECHES  [June  26 

instrument  with  him.  One  after  another  they 
have  closed  the  hea\y  iron  doors  upon  him :  and 
now  they  have  him.  as  it  were,  bolted  in  with  a 
lock  of  a  hundred  keys,  which  can  never  be  un- 
locked without  the  concurrence  of  ever\-  key — 
the  keys  in  the  hands  of  a  hundred  different  men, 
and  they  scattered  to  a  hundred  different  and 
distant  places ;  and  they  stand  musing  as  to 
what  invention,  in  all  the  dominions  of  mind  and 
matter,  can  be  produced  to  make  the  impossibilitv' 
of  his  escape  m^ore  complete  than  it  is. 

It  is  grossly  incorrect  to  say  or  assume  that 
the  public  estimate  of  the  negro  is  more  favor- 
able now  than  it  was  at  the  origin  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

Three  years  and  a  half  ago.  Judge  Douglas 
brought  forward  his  famous  Nebraska  bill.  The 
countn,-  was  at  once  in  a  blaze.  He  scorned  all 
opposition,  and  carried  it  through  Congress. 
Since  then  he  has  seen  himself  superseded  in  a 
presidential  nomination  by  one  indorsing  the 
general  doctrine  of  his  measure,  but  at  the  same 
time  standing  clear  of  the  odium  of  its  imtimely 
agitation  and  its  gross  breach  of  national  faith; 
and  he  has  seen  that  successful  rival  constitu- 
tionally elected,  not  by  the  strength  of  friends, 
but  by  the  di\*ision  of  adversaries,  being  in  a  pop- 
ular minority  of  nearly  four  hundred  thousand 
votes.  He  has  seen  his  chief  aids  in  his  own  State. 
Shields  and  Richardson,  politically  speaking,  suc- 
cessively tried.  con\-icted,  and  executed  for  an 
offense  not  their  own,  but  his.  And  now  he  sees 
his  own  case  standins:  next  on  the  docket  for  trial. 

There  is  a  natural  disgust  in  the  minds  of 
nearly  all  white  people  at  the  idea  of  an  indis- 
criminate amalsramation  of  the  white  and  black 


iS57]  AT  SPRIXGFIELD  23 

races :  and  Judge  Douglas  eridently  i?  ':i-ir.~  hi- 
chief  hope  upon  the  chances  of  his  i  r>:  1:  t  :: 
appropriate  the  benefit  of  this  disgust  to  himself. 
If  he  can,  by  much  drumming  and  repe^:  r^ 
fasten  the  odium  of  that  idea  upon  hi 5  ^Iversa- 
ries,  he  thinks  he  can  struggle  throug?  :'  t  :  -r:. 
He  therefore  clings  to  this  hope,  as  ^  Ir:  r  rr 
man  to  the  last  plank.  He  makes  sr  :: : :  -  r  : :  r 
lugging  it  in  i-zrr.  I'r.t  :;;:  i:: ::.  :  :  -  _:ri 
Scott  decision-     He  nnis  :r.t  7  7  r.=    ry.-i- 

ing  that  the  Declare:::::  ::'  It^t:  :  ^  t  :  ies 
all  men,  black  as  ■  t;;  1;  .;i::e.  ajic  :::: :  v.in  he 
boldly  denies  ths.:  ::  r  :.  des  negroe-  1:  ^V..  and 
proceeds  to  argje  gi^.ty  that  all  who  coniend  it 
does,  do  so  only  because  they  want  to  vote,  and 
eat.  and  sleep,  and  marry  with  negroes !  He  will 
have  it  that  they  cannot  be  consistent  else.  Now 
I  protest  against  the  coimterfeit  logic  which  con- 
cludes that,  because  I  do  not  want  a  black  woman 
for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  ht:  ::r  a 
wife.  I  need  not  have  her  for  either.  I  can  just 
leave  her  alone.  In  some  respects  she  certainly  is 
not  my  equal ;  but  in  her  natural  right  to  eat  the 
bread  she  earns  with  her  own  hands  without  ask- 
ing leave  of  any  one  else,  she  is  my  equal,  and  the 
equal  of  all  others. 

Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinion  in  :hr  T  "t  1 
Scott  case,  admits  that  the  lang-.  :  t  ci  liie 
Declaration  is  broad  enough  to  indu  :  e  whole 
human  family,  but  he  and  Judge  D  .  ^  h  =  ?.-rue 
that  the  authors  of  that  instrumen:  h  ::  :ji- 
tend  to  include  negroes,  by  the  fact  :  n  :  :'  did 
not  at  once  actuahy  ciace  them  on  :.:-.  ~. :  irv 
with  the  whites.  Xow  this  grave  :.rr- :  :.: 
comes  to  just  nothing  at  all.  by  :he  :  ^^r  :  :: 
that  they  did  not  at  once,  or  ever  aftenv-irL  :.::..- 


24  SPEECHES  [June  26 

ally  place  all  white  people  on  an  equality  with  one 
another.  And  this  is  the  staple  argument  of  both 
the  chief  justice  and  the  senator  for  doing  this 
obvious  violence  to  the  plain,  unmistakable  lan- 
guage of  the  Declaration. 

I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument 
intended  to  include  all  men,  but  they  did  not  in- 
tend to  declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects.  They 
did  not  mean  to  say  all  were  equal  in  color,  size, 
intellect,  moral  developments,  or  social  capacity. 
They  defined  with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what 
respects  they  did  consider  all  men  created  equal 
— equal  with  "certain  inalienable  rights,  among 
which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness." This  they  said,  and  this  they  meant. 
They  did  not  mean  to  assert  the  obvious  untruth 
that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that  equality, 
nor  yet  that  they  were  about  to  confer  it  immedi- 
ately upon  them.  In  fact,  they  had  no  power  to 
confer  such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  de- 
clare the  right,  so  that  enforcement  of  it  might 
follow  as  fast  as  circumstances  should  permit. 

They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for 
free  society,  which  should  be  familiar  to  all,  and 
revered  by  all ;  constantly  looked  to,  constantly 
labored  for,  and  even  though  never  perfectly  at- 
tained, constantly  approximated,  and  thereby 
constantly  spreading  and  deepening  its  influence 
and  augmenting  the  happiness  and  value  of  life 
to  all  people  of  all  colors  everywhere.  The  as- 
sertion that  "all  men  are  created  equal"  was  of 
no  practical  use  in  effecting  our  separation  from 
Great  Britain ;  and  it  was  placed  in  the  Declara- 
tion not  for  that,  but  for  future  use.  Its  authors 
meant  it  to  be — as,  thank  God,  it  is  now  proving 
itself — a  stumbling-block  to  all  those  who  in  after 


i857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  25 

times  might  seek  to  turn  a  free  people  back  into 
the  hateful  paths  of  despotism.  They  knew  the 
proneness  of  prosperity  to  breed  tyrants,  and  they 
meant  when  such  should  reappear  in  this  fair  land 
and  commence  their  vocation,  they  should  find 
left  for  them  at  least  one  hard  nut  to  crack. 

I  have  now  briefly  expressed  my  view  of  the 
meaning  and  object  of  that  part  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  which  declares  that  "all 
men  are  created  equal." 

Now  let  us  hear  Judge  Douglas's  view  of  the 
same  subject,  as  I  find  it  in  the  printed  report  of 
his  late  speech.     Here  it  is : 

No  man  can  vindicate  the  character,  motives,  and  con- 
duct of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
except  upon  the  hypothesis  that  they  referred  to  the 
white  race  alone,  and  not  to  the  African,  when  they  de- 
clared all  men  to  have  been  created  equal;  that  they 
were  speaking  of  British  subjects  on  this  continent  be- 
ing equal  to  British  subjects  born  and  residing  in  Great 
Britain;  that  they  were  entitled  to  the  same  inalienable 
rights,  and  among  them  were  enumerated  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  Declaration  was 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  colonists  in  the 
eyes  of  the  civilized  world  in  withdrawing  their  alle- 
giance from  the  British  crown,  and  dissolving  their 
connection  with  the  mother  country. 

My  good  friends,  read  that  carefully  over  some 
leisure  hour,  and  ponder  well  upon  it ;  see  what  a 
mere  wreck — mangled  ruin — it  makes  of  our 
once  glorious  Declaration. 

"They  were  speaking  of  British  subjects  on 
this  continent  being  equal  to  British  subjects  born 
and  residing  in  Great  Britain !"  Why,  according 
to  this,  not  only  negroes  but  white  people  outside 
of  Great  Britain  and  America  were  not  spoken  of 
in    that    instrument.      The    English,    Irish,    and 


26  SPEECHES  [June  26 

Scotch,  along  with  white  Americans,  were  in- 
cluded, to  be  sure,  but  the  French,  Germans,  and 
other  white  people  of  the  world  are  all  gone  to 
pot  along  with  the  judge's  inferior  races ! 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  promised  some- 
thing better  than  the  condition  of  British  sub- 
jects ;  but  no,  it  only  meant  that  we  should  be 
equal  to  them  in  their  own  oppressed  and  unequal 
condition.  According  to  that,  it  gave  no  promise 
that,  having  kicked  off  the  king  and  lords  of 
Great  Britain,  we  should  not  at  once  be  saddled 
with  a  king  and  lords  of  our  own. 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  contemplated 
the  progressive  improvement  in  the  condition  of 
all  men  everywhere;  but  no,  it  merely  "was 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  colo- 
nists in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world  in  with- 
drawing their  allegiance  from  the  British  crown, 
and  dissolving  their  connection  with  the  mother 
country."  Why,  that  object  having  been  effected 
some  eighty  years  ago,  the  Declaration  is  of  no 
practical  use  now — mere  rubbish — old  wadding 
left  to  rot  on  the  battle-field  after  the  victory  is 
won. 

I  understand  you  are  preparing  to  celebrate  the 
''Fourth,"  to-morrow  week.  What  for?  The 
doings  of  that  day  had  no  reference  to  the  pres- 
ent ;  and  quite  half  of  you  are  not  even  descend- 
ants of  those  who  were  referred  to  at  that  day. 
But  I  suppose  you  will  celebrate,  and  will  even 
go  so  far  as  to  read  the  Declaration.  Suppose, 
after  you  read  it  once  in  the  old-fashioned  way, 
you  read  it  once  more  with  Judge  Douglas's  ver- 
sion. It  will  then  run  thus :  ''We  hold  these 
truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  British  subjects 
who  were  on  this  continent  eighty-one  years  ago, 


i857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  27 

were  created  equal  to  all  British  subjects  born 
and  then  residing  in  Great  Britain." 

And  now  I  appeal  to  all — to  Democrats  as  well 
as  others — are  you  really  willing  that  the  Decla- 
ration shall  thus  be  frittered  away? — thus  left  no 
more,  at  most,  than  an  interesting  memorial  of 
the  dead  past? — thus  shorn  of  its  vitality  and 
practical  value,  and  left  without  the  germ  or  even 
the  suggestion  of  the  individual  rights  of  man 
in  it? 

But  Judge  Douglas  is  especially  horrified  at 
the  thought  of  the  mixing  of  blood  by  the  white 
and  black  races.  Agreed  for  once — a  thousand 
times  agreed.  There  are  white  men  enough  to 
marry  all  the  white  women,  and  black  men 
enough  to  marry  all  the  black  women ;  and  so  let 
them  be  married.  On  this  point  we  fully  agree 
with  the  judge,  and  when  he  shall  show  that  his 
policy  is  better  adapted  to  prevent  amalgamation 
than  ours,  we  shall  drop  ours  and  adopt  his.  Let 
us  see.  In  1850  there  were  in  the  United  States 
405,751  mulattos.  Very  few  of  these  are  the 
offspring  of  whites  and  free  blacks ;  nearly  all 
have  sprung  from  black  slaves  and  white  mas- 
ters. A  separation  of  the  races  is  the  only  per- 
fect preventive  of  amalgamation;  but  as  an  im- 
mediate separation  is  impossible,  the  next  best 
thing  is  to  keep  them  apart  where  they  are  not 
already  together.  If  white  and  black  people 
never  get  together  in  Kansas,  they  will  never 
mix  blood  in  Kansas.  That  is  at  least  one  self- 
evident  truth.  A  few  free  colored  persons  may 
get  into  the  free  States,  in  any  event;  but  their 
number  is  too  insignificant  to  amount  to  much 
in  the  way  of  mixing  blood.  In  1850  there  were 
in  the  free  States  56,649  mulattos;  but  for  the 


28  SPEECHES  [June  26 

most  part  they  were  not  born  there — they  came 
from  the  slave  States,  ready  made  up.  In  the 
same  year  the  slave  States  had  348,874  mulattos, 
all  of  home  production.  The  proportion  of  free 
mulattos  to  free  blacks — the  only  colored  classes 
in  the  free  States — is  much  greater  in  the  slave 
than  in  the  free  States.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  too, 
that  among  the  free  States  those  which  make  the 
colored  man  the  nearest  equal  to  the  white  have 
proportionably  the  fewest  mulattos,  the  least  of 
amalgamation.  In  New  Hampshire,  the  State 
which  goes  farthest  toward  equality  between  the 
races,  there  are  just  184  mulattos,  while  there 
are  in  Virginia — how  many  do  you  think? — 79,- 
775,  being  23,126  more  than  in  all  the  free  States 
together. 

These  statistics  show  that  slavery  is  the  great- 
est source  of  amalgamation,  and  next  to  it,  not 
the  elevation,  but  the  degradation  of  the  free 
blacks.  Yet  Judge  Douglas  dreads  the  slightest 
restraints  on  the  spread  of  slavery,  and  the 
slightest  human  recognition  of  the  negro,  as 
tending  horribly  to  amalgamiation. 

The  very  Dred  Scott  case  affords  a  strong  test 
as  to  which  party  most  favors  amalgamation,  the 
Republicans  or  the  dear  Union-saving  Democ- 
racy. Dred  Scott,  his  wife,  and  two  daughters 
were  all  involved  in  the  suit.  We  desired  the 
court  to  have  held  that  they  were  citizens  so  far 
at  least  as  to  entitle  them  to  a  hearing  as  to 
whether  they  were  free  or  not;  and  then,  also, 
that  they  were  in  fact  and  in  law  really  free. 
Could  we  have  had  our  way,  the  chances  of  these 
black  girls  ever  mixing  their  blood  with  that  of 
white  people  would  have  been  diminished  at  least 
to  the  extent  that  it  could  not  have  been  without 


i857]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  29 

their  consent.  But  Judge  Douglas  is  delighted 
to  have  them  decided  to  be  slaves,  and  not  human 
enough  to  have  a  hearing,*  even  if  they  were  free, 
and  thus  left  subject  to  the  forced  concubinage 
of  their  masters,  and  liable  to  become  the  mothers 
of  mulattos  in  spite  of  themselves :  the  very  state 
of  case  that  produces  nine  tenths  of  all  the  mu- 
lattos— all  the  mixing  of  blood  in  the  nation. 

Of  course,  I  state  this  case  as  an  illustration 
only,  not  meaning  to  say  or  intimate  that  the 
master  of  Dred  Scott  and  his  family,  or  any  more 
than  a  percentage  of  masters  generally,  are  in- 
clined to  exercise  this  particular  power  which 
they  hold  over  their  female  slaves. 

I  have  said  that  the  separation  of  the  races 
is  the  only  perfect  preventive  of  amalgamation. 
I  have  no  right  to  say  all  the  members  of  the 
Republican  party  are  in  favor  of  this,  nor  to  say 
that  as  a  party  they  are  in  favor  of  it.  There 
is  nothing  in  their  platform  directly  on  the  sub- 
ject. But  I  can  say  a  very  large  proportion  of 
its  m.embers  are  for  it,  and  that  the  chief  plank  in 
their  platform — opposition  to  the  spread  of 
slavery — is  most  favorable  to  that  separation. 

Such  separation,  if  ever  effected  at  all,  must  be 
effected  by  colonization ;  and  no  political  party, 
as  such,  is  now  doing  anything  directly  for  colo- 
nization. Party  operations  at  present  only  favor 
or  retard  colonization  incidentally.  The  enter- 
prise is  a  difficult  one ;  but  ''where  there  is  a  will 
there  is  a  way,"  and  what  colonization  needs 
most  is  a  hearty  will.  Will  springs  from  the  two 
elements  of  moral  sense  and  self-interest.  Let  us 
be  brought  to  believe  it  is  morally  right,  and  at 
the  same  time  favorable  to,  or  at  least  not  against, 
our  interest  to  transfer  the  African  to  his  native 


30  SPEECHES  [Sept.  22 

clime,  and  we  shall  find  a  way  to  do  it,  however 
great  the  task  may  be.  The  children  of  Israel, 
to  such  numbers  as  to  include  four  hundred  thou- 
sand fighting  men,  went  out  of  Egyptian  bondage 
in  a  body. 

How  differently  the  respective  courses  of  the 
Democratic  and  Republican  parties  incidentally 
bear  on  the  question  of  forming  a  will — a  public 
sentiment — for  colonization,  is  easy  to  see.  The 
Republicans  inculcate,  with  whatever  of  ability 
they  can,  that  the  negro  is  a  man,  that  his  bondage 
is  cruelly  wrong,  and  that  the  field  of  his  oppres- 
sion ought  not  to  be  enlarged.  The  Democrats 
deny  his  manhood;  deny,  or  dwarf  to  insignifi- 
cance, the  wrong  of  his  bondage ;  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, crush  all  sympathy  for  him,  and  cultivate 
and  excite  hatred  and  disgust  against  him ;  com- 
pliment themselves  as  Union-savers  for  doing  so ; 
and  call  the  indefinite  outspreading  of  his  bond- 
age "a  sacred  right  of  self-government." 

The  plainest  print  cannot  be  read  through  a 
gold  eagle ;  and  it  will  be  ever  hard  to  find  many 
men  who  will  send  a  slave  to  Liberia,  and  pay  his 
passage,  while  they  can  send  him  to  a  new  coun- 
try— Kansas,  for  instance — and  sell  him  for  fif- 
teen hundred  dollars,  and  the  rise. 


i857]  BRIDGE  CASE  31 

Argument  in  the  Rock  Island  Bridge  Case, 

Extracts  from  a  Report  in  the  Daily  Press  of 
Chicago,  September  24,  1857. 

THE  ROCK  ISLAND  BRIDGE  CASE. 


Hurd  et  al. 

vs. 

Railroad  Bridge  Co. 


United  States  Circuit  Court, 

Hon.  John  McClean,  Presiding  Judge. 

13th  day,  Tuesday,  September  22nd,  1857. 

Mr.  A.  Lincoln  addressed  the  jury.  He  said 
he  did  not  purpose  to  assail  anybody,  that  he  ex- 
pected to  grow  earnest  as  he  proceeded  but  not 
ill-natured.  ''There  is  some  conflict  of  testimony 
in  the  case,"  he  said,  "but  one  quarter  of  such  a 
number  of  witnesses  seldom  agree  and  even  if 
all  were  on  one  side,  some  discrepancy  might  be 
expected.  We  are  to  try  and  reconcile  them, 
and  to  believe  that  they  are  not  intentionally  erro- 
neous as  long  as  we  can."  He  had  no  prejudice, 
he  said,  against  steamboats  or  steamboatmen  nor 
any  against  St.  Louis,  for  he  supposed  they  went 
about  this  matter  as  other  people  would  do  in 
their  situation.  "St.  Louis,"  he  continued,  "as 
a  commercial  place  may  desire  that  this  bridge 
should  not  stand  as  it  is  adverse  to  her  com- 
merce, diverting  a  portion  of  it  from  the  river; 
and  it  may  be  that  she  supposes  that  the  addi- 
tional cost  of  railroad  transportation   upon  the 


32  SPEECHES  [Sept  22 

productions  of  Iowa  will  force  them  to  go  to  St. 
Louis  if  this  bridge  is  removed.  The  meetings 
in  St.  Louis  are  connected  with  this  case  only 
as  some  witnesses  are  in  it  and  thus  has  some 
prejudice  added  color  to  their  testimony." 

The  last  thing  that  would  be  pleasing  to  him, 
Mr.  Lincoln  said,  would  be  to  have  one  of  these 
great  channels  extending  almost  from  where  it 
never  freezes  to  where  it  never  thaws  blocked 
up,  but  there  is  a  travel  from  east  to  west  whose 
demands  are  not  less  important  than  those  of  the 
river.  It  is  growing  larger  and  larger,  building 
up  new  countries  with  a  rapidity  never  before 
seen  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

He  alluded  to  the  astonishing  growth  of  Illi- 
nois, having  grown  within  his  memory  to  a  popu- 
lation of  a  million  and  a  half ;  to  Iowa  and  the 
other  young  rising  communities  of  the  northwest. 

**This  current  of  travel."  said  he,  "has  its 
rights  as  well  as  that  of  north  and  south.  If  the 
river  had  not  the  advantage  in  priority  and  legis- 
lation we  could  enter  into  free  competition  with 
it  and  we  could  surpass  it.  This  particular  rail- 
road line  has  a  great  importance  and  the  state- 
ment of  its  business  during  a  little  less  than  a 
year  shows  this  importance.  It  is  in  evidence 
that  from  September  8th,  1856,  to  August  8th, 
1857,  12,586  freight  cars  and  74,179  passengers 
passed  over  this  bridge.  Navigation  was  closed 
four  days  short  of  four  months  last  year,  and 
during  this  time  while  the  river  was  of  no  use 
this  road  and  bridge  were  valuable.  There  is, 
too,  a  considerable  portion  of  time  when  floating 
or  thin  ice  makes  the  river  useless  while  the 
bridge  is  as  useful  as  ever.  This  shows  that  this 
bridge  must  be  treated  with  respect  in  this  court 


i857l  BRIDGE  CASE  33 

and  is  not  to  be  kicked  about  with  contempt.  The 
other  day  Judge  Wead  alluded  to  the  strike  of 
the  contending  interest  and  even  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union.  The  proper  mode  for  all  parties  in 
this  affair  is  to  ''live  and  let  live"  and  then  we 
will  find  a  cessation  of  this  trouble  about  the 
bridge.  What  mood  were  the  steamboat  men  in 
when  this  bridge  was  burned  ?  Why,  there  was  a 
shouting  and  ringing  of  bells  and  whistling  on  all 
the  boats  as  it  fell.  It  was  a  jubilee,  a  greater 
celebration  than  follows  an  excited  election. 

Mr.  Lincoln  then  proceeded  to  discuss  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case.  This  consumed  the  rest  of  the 
day. 

On  the  next  morning,  September  14,  1857, 
Mr.  Lincoln  resumed  his  discussion,  in  which  he 
designed  to  show  that  the  fault  lay  with  the  man- 
agement of  the  damaged  boat,  and  was  not  due 
to  faulty  construction  of  the  bridge.  A  bridge 
with  piers,  he  declared,  was  a  necessity  in  rail- 
road engineering  for  getting  across  the  Mississ- 
ippi river.  There  was,  he  said,  no  practicability 
in  the  project  of  building  a  tunnel  under  the 
river,  for  there  "is  not  a  tunnel  that  is  a  success- 
ful project  in  this  world.  A  suspension  bridge 
cannot  be  built  so  high  but  that  the  chimneys  of 
the  boats  will  grow  up  till  they  cannot  pass.  The 
steamboat  men  will  take  pains  to  make  them 
grow.  The  cars  of  a  railroad  cannot  without  im- 
mense expense  rise  high  enough  to  get  even  with 
a  suspension  bridge  or  go  low  enough  to  get 
through  a  tunnel ;  such  expense  is  unreasonable. 

''The  plaintiffs  have  to  establish  that  the  bridge 
is  a  material  obstruction  and  that  they  have  man- 
aged their  boat  with  reasonable  care  and  skill. 
As  to  the  last  point,  high  winds  have  nothing  to 


34  SPEECHES  [June  i6 

do  with  it,  for  it  was  not  a  windy  day.  They 
must  show  due  skill  and  care.  Difficulties  going 
down  stream  will  not  do,  for  they  were  going  up 
stream.  Difficulties  with  barges,  in  tow,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  accident,  for  they  had  no 
barge." 

Mr.  Lincoln  said  he  had  much  more  to  say, 
many  things  he  could  suggest  to  the  jury,  but  he 
wished  to  close  to  save  time. 


Adjudication  Rather  Than  Legislation  the 
Proper  Method  for  Settlement  of  Certain 
Legal  Controversies* 

Notes  of  Argument  in  a  Railroad  Case.  June 

15,  1858. 

Legislation  and  adjudication  must  follow  and 
conform  to  the  progress  of  society.  The  prog- 
ress of  society  now  begins  to  produce  cases  of 
the  transfer  for  debts  of  the  entire  property  of 
railroad  corporations ;  and  to  enable  transferees 
to  use  and  enjoy  the  transferred  property,  legis- 
lation and  adjudication  begin  to  be  necessary. 
Shall  this  class  of  legislation  just  now  beginning 
with  us  be  general  or  special  ?  Section  ten  of  our 
Constitution  requires  that  it  should  be  general, 
if  possible.  \^Read  the  section.']  Special  legis- 
lation always  trenches  upon  the  judicial  depart- 
ment, and  in  so  far  violates  section  two  of  the 
Constitution.     [Read  it.] 

Just  reasoning — policy — is  in  favor  of  general 
legislation,  else  the  legislature  will  be  loaded 
down  with  the  investigation  of  smaller  cases — a 
work  which  the  courts  ought  to  perform,  and 
can  perform  much  more  perfectly.    How  can  the 


i858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD 


35 


legislature  rightly  decide  the  facts  between  P. 
and  B.  and  S.  C.  and  Co.? 

It  is  said  that  under  a  general  law,  whenever 
a  railroad  company  got  tired  of  its  debts  it  may 
transfer  fraudulently  to  get  rid  of  them.  So  they 
may — so  may  individuals ;  and  which,  the  legisla- 
ture or  the  courts,  is  best  suited  to  try  the  ques- 
tion of  fraud  in  either  case? 

It  is  said,  if  a  purchaser  have  acquired  legal 
rights,  let  him  not  be  robbed  of  them;  but  if  he 
needs  legislation,  let  him  submit  to  just  terms  to 
obtain  it. 

Let  him,  say  we,  have  general  law  in  advance 
(guarded  in  every  possible  way  against  fraud), 
so  that  when  he  acquires  a  legal  right  he  will 
have  no  occasion  to  wait  for  additional  legisla- 
tion ;  and  if  he  has  practised  fraud,  -let  the  courts 
so  decide. 

"A    House    Divided    Against    Itself    Cannot 

Stand." 

Speech  in  Acceptance  of  Nomination  as 
United  States  Senator,  Made  at  the 
Close  of  the  Republican  State  Conven- 
tion, Springfield,  III.    June  i6,  1858. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion: If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and 
whither  we  are  tending,  we  could  better  judge 
what  to  do,  and  how  to  do  it.  We  are  now  far 
into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated 
with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of 
putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the 
operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not 
only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented. 


36  SPEECHES  [June  i6 

In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  ''A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this  gov- 
ernment cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be 
dissolved — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but 
I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either 
the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind 
shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all 
the  States,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as 
South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition? 

Let  any  one  who  doubts  carefully  contemplate 
that  now  almost  complete  legal  combination — 
piece  of  machinery,  so  to  speak — compounded  of 
the  Nebraska  doctrine  and  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision. Let  him  consider  not  only  what  work 
the  machinery  is  adapted  to  do,  and  how  well 
adapted ;  but  also  let  him  study  the  history  of  its 
construction,  and  trace,  if  he  can,  or  rather  fail, 
if  he  can,  to  trace  the  evidences  of  design  and 
concert  of  action  among  its  chief  architects,  from 
the  beginning. 

The  new  year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded 
from  more  than  half  the  States  by  State  constitu- 
tions, and  from  most  of  the  national  territory  bj 
congressional  prohibition.  Four  days  later  com- 
menced the  struggle  which  ended  in  repealing 
that  congressional  prohibition.  This  opened  all 
the  national  territory  to  slavery,  and  was  the  first 
point  gained. 

But,  so  far,  Congress  only  had  acted;  and  an 


i8s8]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  37 

indorsement  by  the  people,  real  or  apparent,  was 
indispensable  to  save  the  point  already  gained  and 
give  chance  for  more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked,  but 
had  been  provided  for,  as  well  as  might  be,  in  the 
notable  argument  of  ''squatter  sovereignty," 
otherwise  called  ''sacred  right  of  self-govern- 
ment," which  latter  phrase,  though  expressive  of 
the  only  rightful  basis  of  any  government,  was  so 
perverted  in  this  attempted  use  of  it  as  to  amount 
to  just  this :  That  if  any  one  man  choose  to  en- 
slave another,  no  third  man  shall  be  allowed  to 
object.  That  argument  was  incorporated  into 
the  Nebraska  bill  itself,  in  the  language  which 
follows :  'Tt  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Terri- 
tory or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom;  but 
to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  Then  opened  the  roar  of  loose 
declamation  in  favor  of  "squatter  sovereignty" 
and  "sacred  right  of  self-government."  "But," 
said  opposition  members,  "let  us  amend  the  bill 
so  as  to  expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the 
Territory  may  exclude  slavery."  "Not  we,"  said 
the  friends  of  the  measure ;  and  down  they  voted 
the  amendment. 

While  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passing  through 
Congress,  a  law  case  involving  the  question  of  a 
negro's  freedom,  by  reason  of  his  owner  having 
voluntarily  taken  him  first  into  a  free  State  and 
then  into  a  Territory  covered  by  the  congres- 
sional prohibition,  and  held  him  as  a  slave  for  a 
long  time  in  each,  was  passing  through  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of 


38  SPEECHES  [June  i6 

Missouri ;  and  both  Nebraska  bill  and  lawsuit 
were  brought  to  a  decision  in  the  same  month  of 
May,  1854.  The  negro's  name  was  Dred  Scott, 
which  name  now  designates  the  decision  finally 
made  in  the  case.  Before  the  then  next  presi- 
dential election,  the  law  case  came  to  and  was 
argued  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States ;  but  the  decision  of  it  was  deferred  until 
after  the  election.  Still,  before  the  election,  Sen- 
ator Trumbull,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  re- 
quested the  leading  advocate  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  to  state  his  opinion  whether  the  people  of  a 
Territory  can  constitutionally  exclude  slavery 
from  their  limits ;  and  the  latter  answered :  "That 
is  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court." 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected, 
and  the  indorsement,  such  as  it  was,  secured. 
That  was  the  second  point  gained.  The  indorse- 
ment, however,  fell  short  of  a  clear  popular  ma- 
jority by  nearly  four  hundred  thousand  votes, 
and  so,  perhaps,  was  not  overwhelmingly  reliable 
and  satisfactory.  The  outgoing  President,  in  his 
last  annual  message,  as  impressively  as  possible 
echoed  back  upon  the  people  the  weight  and 
authority  of  the  indorsement.  The  Supreme 
Court  met  again ;  did  not  announce  their  decision, 
but  ordered  a  reargument.  The  presidential  in- 
auguration came,  and  still  no  decision  of  the 
court ;  but  the  incoming  President  in  his  inaugu- 
ral address  fervently  exhorted  the  people  to  abide 
by  the  forthcoming  decision,  whatever  it  might 
be.    Then,  in  a  few  days,  came  the  decision. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill  finds 
an  early  occasion  to  make  a  speech  at  this  capital 
indorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  vehe- 
mently denouncing:  all  opposition  to  it.    The  new 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  39 

President,  too,  seizes  the  early  occasion  of  the 
SilHman  letter  to  indorse  and  strongly  construe 
that  decision,  and  to  express  his  astonishment 
that  any  different  view  had  ever  been  enter- 
tained ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the 
President  and  the  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
on  the  mere  question  of  fact,  whether  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  was  or  was  not,  in  any  just 
sense,  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas ;  and  in  that 
quarrel  the  latter  declares  that  all  he  wants  is  a 
fair  vote  for  the  people,  and  that  he  cares  not 
whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up.  I 
do  not  understand  his  declaration  that  he  cares 
not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up 
to  be  intended  by  him  other  than  as  an  apt  defi- 
nition of  the  policy  he  would  impress  upon  the 
public  mind — the  principle  for  which  he  declares 
he  has  suffered  so  much,  and  is  ready  to  suffer  to 
the  end.  And  well  may  he  cling  to  that  principle. 
If  he  has  any  parental  feeling,  well  may  he  cling 
to  it.  That  principle  is  the  only  shred  left  of  his 
original  Nebraska  doctrine.  Under  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  ''squatter  sovereignty"  squatted 
out  of  existence,  tumbled  down  like  temporary 
scaffolding, — like  the  mold  at  the  foundry,  served 
through  one  blast  and  fell  back  into  loose 
sand, — helped  to  carry  an  election,  and  then  was 
kicked  to  the  winds.  His  late  joint  struggle  with 
the  Republicans  against  the  Lecompton  constitu- 
tion involves  nothing  of  the  original  Nebraska 
doctrine.  That  struggle  was  made  on  a  point — 
the  right  of  a  people  to  make  their  own  constitu- 
tion— upon  which  he  and  the  Republicans  have 
never  differed. 

The  several  points  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 


40  SPEECHES  [June  i6 

in  connection  with  Senator  Douglas's  "care  not'* 
policy,  constitute  the  piece  of  machinery  in  its 
present  state  of  advancement.  This  was  the  third 
point  gained.  The  working  points  of  that  ma- 
chinery are : 

(i)  That  no  negro  slave,  imported  as  such 
from  Africa,  and  no  descendant  of  such  slave, 
can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any  State,  in  the  sense 
of  that  term  as  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  This  point  is  made  in  order  to 
deprive  the  negro  in  every  possible  event  of  the 
benefit  of  that  provision  of  the  United  States 
Constitution  which  declares  that  ''the  citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

(2)  That,  "subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,"  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial 
legislature  can  exclude  slavery  from  any  United 
States  Territory.  This  point  is  made  in  order 
that  individual  men  may  fill  up  the  Territories 
with  slaves,  without  danger  of  losing  them  as 
property,  and  thus  enhance  the  chances  of  per- 
manency to  the  institution  through  all  the 
future. 

(3)  That  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  actual 
slavery  in  a  free  State  makes  him  free  as  against 
the  holder,  the  United  States  courts  will  not  de- 
cide, but  will  leave  to  be  decided  by  the  courts  of 
any  slave  State  the  negro  may  be  forced  into  by 
the  master.  This  point  is  made  not  to  be  pressed 
immediately,  but,  if  acquiesced  in  for  a  while, 
and  apparently  indorsed  by  the  people  at  an  elec- 
tion, then  to  sustain  the  logical  conclusion  that 
what  Dred  Scott's  master  might  lawfully  do  with 
Dred  Scott  in  the  free  State  of  Illinois,  every 
Other  master  may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one 


i8s8]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  41 

or  one  thousand  slaves  in  Illinois  or  in  any  other 
free  State. 

Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in  hand 
with  it,  the  Nebraska  doctrine,  or  what  is  left  of 
it,  is  to  educate  and  mold  public  opinion,  at  least 
Northern  public  opinion,  not  to  care  whether 
slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up.  This  shows 
exactly  where  we  now  are,  and  partially,  also, 
whither  we  are  tending. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter,  to 
go  back  and  run  the  mind  over  the  string  of  his- 
torical facts  already  stated.  Several  things  will 
now  appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than  they 
did  when  they  were  transpiring.  The  people  were 
to  be  left  ''perfectly  free,"  ''subject  only  to  the 
Constitution."  What  the  Constitution  had  to  do 
with  it  outsiders  could  not  then  see.  Plainly 
enough  now,  it  was  an  exactly  fitted  niche  for  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  to  afterward  come  in,  and 
declare  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  people  to  be 
just  no  freedom  at  all.  Why  was  the  amend- 
ment expressly  declaring  the  right  of  the  people 
voted  down?  Plainly  enough  now,  the  adoption 
of  it  would  have  spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Why  was  the  court  decision  held 
up?  Why  even  a  senator's  individual  opinion 
withheld  till  after  the  presidential  election? 
Plainly  enough  now,  the  speaking  out  then  would 
have  damaged  the  "perfectly  free"  argument 
upon  which  the  election  was  to  be  carried.  Why 
the  outgoing  President's  felicitation  on  the  in- 
dorsement? Why  the  delay  of  a  reargument? 
Why  the  incoming  President's  advance  exhorta- 
tion in  favor  of  the  decision  ?  These  things  look 
like  the  cautious  patting  and  petting  of  a  spirited 
-horse  preparatory  to  mounting  him,  when  it  is 


42  SPEECHES  tjune  i6 

dreaded  that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall.  And 
why  the  hasty  after-indorsement  of  the  decision 
by  the  President  and  others  ? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact 
adaptations  are  the  result  of  preconcert.  But 
when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different 
portions  of  which  we  know  have  been  gotten  out 
at  different  times  and  places  and  by  different  work- 
men,— Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for 
instance, — and  we  see  these  timbers  joined  to- 
gether, and  see  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of 
a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons  and  mortises  ex- 
actly fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and  proportions 
of  the  different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their 
respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too 
few,  not  omitting  even  scaffolding — or,  if  a  single 
piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the  frame 
exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece 
in — in  such  a  case  we  find  it  impossible  not  to  be- 
lieve that  Stephen  and  Franklin  and  Roger  and 
James  all  understood  one  another  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  all  worked  upon  a  common  plan  or 
draft  drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  by  the  Ne- 
braska bill,  the  people  of  a  State  as  well  as  Ter- 
ritory were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject 
only  to  the  Constitution."  Why  mention  a  State  ? 
They  were  legislating  for  Territories,  and  not  for 
or  about  States.  Certainly  the  people  of  a  State 
are  and  ought  to  be  subject  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States ;  but  why  is  mention  of  this 
lugged  into  this  merely  territorial  law  ?  Why  are 
the  people  of  a  Territory  and  the  people  of  a 
State  therein  lumped  together,  and  their  relation 
to  the  Constitution  therein  treated  as  being  pre- 
cisely the  same  ?    While  the  opinion  of  the  court. 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  43 

by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
and  the  separate  opinions  of  all  the  concurring 
judges,  expressly  declare  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  neither  permits  Congress 
nor  a  territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery 
from  any  United  States  Territory,  they  all  omit 
to  declare  whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution 
permits  a  State,  or  the  people  of  a  State,  to  ex- 
clude it.  Possibly,  this  is  a  mere  omission ;  but 
who  can  be  quite  sure,  if  McLean  or  Curtis  had 
sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a  declaration  of  un- 
limited power  in  the  people  of  a  State  to  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  just  as  Chase  and  Mace 
sought  to  get  such  declaration,  in  behalf  of  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  into  the  Nebraska  bill — I 
ask,  who  can  be  quite  sure  that  it  would  not  have 
been  voted  down  in  the  one  case  as  it  had  been  in 
the  other  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  the  point  of 
declaring  the  power  of  a  State  over  slavery  is 
made  by  Judge  Nelson.  He  approaches  it  more 
than  once,  using  the  precise  idea,  and  almost  the 
language  too,  of  the  Nebraska  act.  On  one  occa- 
sion his  exact  language  is :  ''Except  in  cases 
where  the  power  is  restrained  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  the  law  of  the  State  is  su- 
preme over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its  juris- 
diction." In  what  cases  the  power  of  the  States 
is  so  restrained  by  the  United  States  Constitution 
is  left  an  open  question,  precisely  as  the  same 
question  as  to  the  restraint  on  the  power  of  the 
Territories  was  left  open  in  the  Nebraska  act. 
Put  this  and  that  together,  and  we  have  another 
nice  little  niche,  which  we  may,  ere  long,  see  filled 
with  another  Supreme  Court  decision  declaring 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does 
not  permit  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from  its 


44  SPEECHES  [June  i6 

limits.  And  this  may  especially  be  expected  if 
the  doctrine  of  *'care  not  whether  slavery  be 
voted  down  or  voted  up"  shall  gain  upon  the  pub- 
lic mind  sufficiently  to  give  promise  that  such  a 
decision  can  be  maintained  when  made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  now  lacks 
of  being  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States.  Welcome, 
or  unwelcome,  such  decision  is  probably  coming, 
and  will  soon  be  upon  us,  unless  the  power  of  the 
present  political  dynasty  shall  be  met  and  over- 
thrown. We  shall  lie  down  pleasantly  dreaming 
that  the  people  of  Missouri  are  on  the  verge  of 
making  their  State  free,  and  we  shall  awake  to 
the  reality  instead  that  the  Supreme  Court  has 
made  Illinois  a  slave  State.  To  meet  and  over- 
throw the  power  of  that  dynasty  is  the  work  now 
before  all  those  who  would  prevent  that  consum- 
mation. That  is  what  we  have  to  do.  How  can 
we  best  do  it? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to 
their  own  friends,  and  yet  whisper  us  softly  that 
Senator  Douglas  is  the  aptest  instrument  there 
is  with  which  to  effect  that  object.  They  wish  us 
to  infer  all  this  from  the  fact  that  he  now  has  a 
little  quarrel  with  the  present  head  of  the  dynasty ; 
and  that  he  has  regularly  voted  with  us  on  a 
single  point  upon  which  he  and  we  have  never 
differed.  They  remind  us  that  he  is  a  great  man, 
and  that  the  largest  of  us  are  very  small  ones. 
Let  this  be  granted.  But  ''a  living  dog  is  better 
than  a  dead  lion."  Judge  Douglas,  if  not  a  dead 
Hon  for  this  work,  is  at  least  a  caged  and  tooth- 
less one.  How  can  he  oppose  the  advances  of 
slavery?  He  don't  care  anything  about  it.  His 
avowed  mission  is  impressing  the  "public  heart" 
to   care  nothing  about   it.     A  leading  Douglas 


i8s8]  AT  SPRINGFIELD 


45 


Democratic  newspaper  thinks  Douglas's  superior 
talent  will  be  needed  to  resist  the  revival  of  the 
African  slave-trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an 
effort  to  revive  that  trade  is  approaching?  He 
has  not  said  so.  Does  he  really  think  so?  But 
if  it  is,  how  can  he  resist  it?  For  years  he  has 
labored  to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of  white  men 
to  take  negro  slaves  into  the  new  Territories. 
Can  he  possibly  show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right 
to  buy  them  where  they  can  be  bought  cheapest  ? 
And  unquestionably  they  can  be  bought  cheaper 
in  Africa  than  in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all  in 
his  power  to  reduce  the  whole  question  of  slavery 
to  one  of  a  mere  right  of  property;  and  as  such, 
how  can  he  oppose  the  foreign  slave-trade?  How 
can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that  ''property"  shall 
be  "perfectly  free,"  unless  he  does  it  as  a  pro- 
tection to  the  home  production?  And  as  the 
home  producers  will  probably  not  ask  the  pro- 
tection, he  v/ill  be  wholly  without  a  ground  of 
opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man 
may  rightfully  be  wiser  to-day  than  he  was  yes- 
terday— that  he  may  rightfully  change  when  he 
finds  himself  wrong.  But  can  we,  for  that  reason, 
run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he  will  make  any  par- 
ticular change  of  which  he,  himself,  has  given  no 
intimation  ?  Can  we  safely  base  our  action  upon 
any  such  vague  inference  ?  Now,  as  ever,  I  wish 
not  to  misrepresent  Judge  Douglas's  position, 
question  his  motives,  or  do  aught  that  can  be  per- 
sonally offensive  to  him.  Whenever,  if  ever,  he 
and  we  can  come  together  on  principle  so  that 
our  great  cause  may  have  assistance  from  his 
great  ability,  I  hope  to  have  interposed  no  ad- 
ventitious obstacle.     But  clearly,  he  is  not  now 


46  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

with  us — he  does  not  pretend  to  be — he  does  not 
promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and  con- 
ducted by,  its  own  undoubted  friends — those 
whose  hands  are  free,  whose  hearts  are  in  the 
work,  who  do  care  for  the  result.  Two  years  ago 
the  Republicans  of  the  nation  mustered  over  thir- 
teen hundred  thousand  strong.  We  did  this  un- 
der the  single  impulse  of  resistance  to  a  common 
danger,  with  every  external  circumstance  against 
us.  Of  strange,  discordant,  and  even  hostile  ele- 
ments, we  gathered  from  the  four  winds,  and 
formed  and  fought  the  battle  through,  under  the 
constant  hot  fire  of  a  disciplined,  proud,  and 
pampered  enemy.  Did  we  brave  all  then  to  falter 
now  ? — now,  when  that  same  enemy  is  wavering, 
dissevered,  and  belligerent?  The  result  is  not 
doubtful.  We  shall  not  fail — if  we  stand  firm, 
we  shall  not  fail.  Wise  counsels  may  accelerate 
or  mistakes  delay  it,  but  sooner  or  later,  the  vic- 
tory is  sure  to  come. 


The  Law  of  Equal  Freedom. 

Speech  at  Chicago,  III.    July  io,  1858. 

My  Fellow-citizens:  On  yesterday  evening, 
upon  the  occasion  of  the  reception  given  to  Sen- 
ator Douglas,  I  was  furnished  with  a  seat  very 
convenient  for  hearing  him,  and  was  otherwise 
very  courteously  treated  by  him  and  his  friends, 
and  for  which  I  thank  him  and  them.  During 
the  course  of  his  remarks  my  name  was  rnen- 
tioned  in  such  a  way  as,  I  suppose,  renders  it  at 
least  not  improper  that  I  should  make  some  sort 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  47 

of  reply  to  him.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow 
the  Senator  in  the  precise  order  in  which  he 
addressed  the  assembled  multitude  upon  that 
occasion,  though  I  shall  perhaps  do  so  in  the 
main. 

There  was  one  question  to  which  he  asked  the 
attention  of  the  crowd,  which  I  deem  of  some- 
what less  importance — at  least  of  propriety  for 
me  to  dwell  upon — than  the  others,  which  he 
brought  in  near  the  close  of  his  speech,  and  which 
I  think  it  would  not  be  entirely  proper  for  me  to 
omit  attending  to ;  and  yet  if  I  were  not  to  give 
some  attention  to  it  now,  I  should  probably  forget 
it  altogether.  While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  al- 
low me  to  say  that  I  do  not  intend  to  indulge  in 
that  inconvenient  mode  sometimes  adopted  in 
public  speaking,  of  reading  from  documents ;  but 
I  shall  depart  from  that  rule  so  far  as  to  read  a 
little  scrap  from  his  speech,  which  notices  this 
first  topic  of  which  I  shall  speak — that  is,  pro- 
vided I  can  find  it  in  the  paper. 

I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people 
against  the  combination  that  has  been  made  against  me. 
The  Republican  leaders  have  formed  an  alliance,  an 
unholy  and  unnatural  alliance,  with  a  portion  of  un- 
scrupulous federal  office-holders.  I  intend  to  fight  that 
allied  army  wherever  I  meet  them.  I  know  th-ey  deny 
the  alliance,  but  yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide 
the  Democratic  party  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  Re- 
publican senator  in  my  place,  are  just  so  much  the 
agents  and  tools  of  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
Hence  I  shall  deal  with  this  allied  army  just  as  the 
Russians  dealt  with  the  allies  at  Sebastopol — that  is, 
the  Russians  did  not  stop  to  inquire,  when  they  fired 
a  broadside,  whether  it  hit  an  Englishman,  a  French- 
man, or  a  Turk.  Nor  will  I  stop  to  inquire,  nor  shall 
I  hesitate,  whether  my  blows  shall  hit  these  Republican 
leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  federal 
offices  and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  them. 


48  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  very  alarm- 
ing ?  Just  to  think  of  it !  right  at  the  outset  of  his 
canvass,  I,  a  poor,  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gen- 
tlemen— I  am  to  be  slain  in  this  way.  Why,  my 
friend  the  judge  is  not  only,  as  it  turns  out,  not 
a  dead  lion,  nor  even  a  living  one — he  is  the 
rugged  Russian  bear. 

But  if  they  will  have  it — for  he  says  that  we 
deny  it — that  there  is  any  such  alliance,  as  he 
says  there  is, — and  I  don't  propose  hanging  very 
much  upon  this  question  of  veracity, — but  if  he 
will  have  it  that  there  is  such  an  alliance,  that 
the  administration  men  and  we  are  allied,  and  we 
stand  in  the  attitude  of  English,  French,  and 
Turk,  he  occupying  the  position  of  the  Russian, 
— in  that  case  I  beg  he  will  indulge  us  while  we 
barely  suggest  to  him  that  these  allies  took  Se- 
bastopol. 

Gentlemen,  only  a  few  more  words  as  to  this 
alliance.  For  my  part,  I  have  to  say  that  whether 
there  be  such  an  alliance  depends,  so  far  as  I 
know,  upon  what  may  be  a  right  definition  of  the 
term  alliance.  If  for  the  Republican  party  to  see 
the  other  great  party  to  which  they  are  opposed 
divided  among  themselves  and  not  try  to  stop  the 
division,  and  rather  be  glad  of  it, — if  that  is  an 
alliance,  I  confess  I  am  in  it ;  but  if  it  is  meant  to 
be  said  that  the  Republicans  had  formed  an  alli- 
ance going  beyond  that,  by  which  there  is  contri- 
bution of  money  or  sacrifice  of  principle  on  the  one 
side  or  the  other,  so  far  as  the  Republican  party 
is  concerned,  if  there  be  any  such  thing,  I  pro- 
test that  I  neither  know  anything  of  it  nor  do  I 
believe  it.  I  will,  however,  say — as  I  think  this 
branch  of  the  argument  is  lugged  in — I  would 
before  I  leave  H  state,  for  the  benefit  of  those 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  49 

concerned,  that  one  of  those  same  Buchanan  men 
did  once  tell  me  of  an  argument  that  he  made  for 
his  opposition  to  Judge  Douglas.  He  said  that  a 
friend  of  our  Senator  Douglas  had  been  talking 
to  him,  and  had  among  other  things  said  to  him : 
''Why,  you  don't  want  to  beat  Douglas  ?"  ''Yes," 
said  he,  "I  do  want  to  beat  him,  and  I  will  tell 
you  why.  I  believe  his  original  Nebraska  bill 
was  right  in  the  abstract,  but  it  was  wrong  in  the 
time  that  it  was  brought  forward.  It  was  wrong 
in  the  application  to  a  Territory  in  regard  to 
which  the  question  had  been  settled;  it  v/as 
brought  forward  at  a  time  when  nobody  asked 
him ;  it  was  tendered  to  the  South  when  the  South 
had  not  asked  for  it,  but  when  they  could  not  well 
refuse  it ;  and  for  this  same  reason  he  forced  that 
question  upon  our  party.  It  has  sunk  the  best 
men  all  over  the  nation,  everywhere ;  and  nov/ 
when  our  President,  struggling  with  the  diffi- 
culties of  this  man's  getting  up,  has  reached  the 
very  hardest  point  to  turn  in  the  case,  he  deserts 
him,  and  I  am  for  putting  him  where  he  will 
trouble  us  no  more." 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  my  argument — 
that  is  not  my  argument  at  all.  I  have  only  been 
stating  to  you  the  argument  of  a  Buchanan  man. 
You  will  judge  if  there  is  any  force  in  it. 

Popular  sovereignty !  everlasting  popular  sov- 
ereignty !  Let  us  for  a  iViOment  inquire  into  this 
vast  matter  of  popular  sovereignty.  What  is 
popular  sovereignty?  We  recollect  that  at  an 
early  period  in  the  history  of  this  struggle,  there 
was  another  name  for  the  same  thing — squatter 
sovereignty.  It  was  not  exactly  popular  sover- 
eignty, but  squatter  sovereignty.  What  did 
those     terms     mean?     What     do     those    terms 


50  SPEECHES  rjuly  lo 

mean  when  used  now?  And  vast  credit 
is  taken  by  our  friend  the  judge  in  regard 
to  his  support  of  it,  when  he  declares  the  last 
years  of  his  life  have  been,  and  all  the  future 
years  of  his  life  shall  be,  devoted  to  this  matter 
of  popular  sovereignty.  What  is  it?  Why,  it  is 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people !  What  was  squat- 
ter sovereignty?  I  suppose  if  it  had  any 
significance  at  all,  it  was  the  right  of  the  people 
to  govern  themselves,  to  be  sovereign  in  their 
own  affairs  while  they  were  squatted  down  in  a 
country  not  their  own,  while  they  had  squatted 
on  a  Territory  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  in  the 
sense  that  a  State  belongs  to  the  people  who  in- 
habit it — when  it  belonged  to  the  nation — such 
right  to  govern  themselves  was  called  "squatter 
sovereignty." 

Now  I  wish  you  to  mark  what  has  become  of 
that  squatter  sovereignty.  What  has  become  of 
it  ?  Can  you  get  anybody  to  tell  you  now  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory  have  any  authority  to  gov- 
ern themselves,  in  regard  to  this  mooted  question 
of  slavery,  before  they  form  a  State  constitution  ? 
No  such  thing  at  all,  although  there  is  a  general 
running  fire,  and  although  there  has  been  a  hur- 
rah made  in  every  speech  on  that  side,  assuming 
that  policy  had  given  the  people  of  a  Territory 
the  right  to  govern  themselves  upon  this  ques- 
tion ;  yet  the  point  is  dodged.  To-day  it  has  been 
decided — no  more  than  a  year  ago  it  was  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
is  insisted  upon  to-day — that  the  people  of  a  Ter- 
ritory have  no  right  to  exclude  slavery  from  a 
Territory ;  that  if  any  one  man  chooses  to  take 
slaves  into  a  Territory,  all  the  rest  of  the  people 
have  no  right  to  keep  them  out.     This  being  so, 


i8:8]  AT  CHICAGO  51 

and  this  decision  being  made  one  of  the  points 
that  the  judge  approved,  and  one  in  the  approval 
of  which  he  says  he  means  to  keep  me  down — put 
me  down  I  should  not  say,  for  I  have  never  been 
up ;  he  says  he  is  in  favor  of  it,  and  sticks  to  it, 
and  expects  to  win  his  battle  on  that  decision, 
which  says  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  squatter 
sovereignty,  but  that  any  one  man  may  take 
slaves  into  a  Territory,  and  all  the  other  men  in 
the  Territory  may  be  opposed  to  it,  and  yet  by 
reason  of  the  Constitution  they  cannot  prohibit 
it.  When  that  is  so,  how  much  is  left  of  this  vast 
matter  of  squatter  sovereignty,  I  should  like  to 
know? 

When  we  get  back,  we  get  to  the  point  of  the 
right  of  the  people  to  make  a  constitution.  Kan- 
sas was  settled,  for  example,  in  1854.  It  was  a 
Territory  yet,  without  having  formed  a  constitu- 
tion, in  a  very  regular  way,  for  three  years.  All 
this  time  negro  slavery  could  be  taken  in  by  any 
few  individuals,  and  by  that  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  which  the  judge  approves,  all  the 
rest  of  the  people  cannot  keep  it  out ;  but  when 
they  come  to  make  a  constitution  they  may  say 
they  will  not  have  slavery.  But  it  is  there ;  they 
are  obliged  to  tolerate  it  some  way,  and  all  ex- 
perience shows  it  will  be  so — for  they  will  not 
take  the  negro  slaves  and  absolutely  deprive  the 
owners  of  them.  All  experience  shows  this  to  be 
so.  All  that  space  of  time  that  runs  from  the 
beginning  of  the  settlement  of  the  Territory  un- 
til there  is  sufficiency  of  people  to  make  a  State 
constitution — all  that  portion  of  time  popular 
sovereignty  is  given  up.  The  seal  is  absolutely 
put  down  upon  it  by  the  court  decision,  and  Judge 
Douglas  puts  his  own  upon  the  top  of  that;  yet 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 


52  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

he  is  appealing  to  the  people  to  give  him  vast 
credit  for  his  devotion  to  popular  sovereignty. 

Again,  when  we  get  to  the  question  of  the 
right  of  the  people  to  form  a  State  constitution 
as  they  please,  to  form  it  with  slavery  or  without 
slavery — if  that  is  anything  new,  I  confess  I  don't 
know  it.  Has  there  ever  been  a  time  when  any- 
body said  that  any  other  than  the  people  of  a 
Territory  itself  should  form  a  constitution? 
What  is  now  in  it  that  Judge  Douglas  should 
have  fought  several  years  of  his  life,  and  pledge 
himself  to  fight  all  the  remxaining  years  of  his  life, 
for?  Can  Judge  Douglas  find  anybody  on  earth 
that  said  that  anybody  else  should  form  a  consti- 
tution for  a  people?  [A  voice:  ''Yes."]  Well, 
I  should  like  you  to  name  him ;  I  should  like  to 
know  who  he  was.  [Same  voice:  "John  Cal- 
houn."] No,  sir;  I  never  heard  of  even  John 
Calhoun  saying  such  a  thing.  He  insisted  on  the 
same  principle  as  Judge  Douglas ;  but  his  mode 
of  applying  it,  in  fact,  was  wrong.  It  is  enough 
for  my  purpose  to  ask  this  crowd  whenever  a  Re- 
publican said  anything  against  it?  They  never 
said  anything  against  it,  but  they  have  constantly 
spoken  for  it;  and  whosoever  will  undertake  to 
examine  the  platform  and  the  speeches  of  re- 
sponsible men  of  the  party,  and  of  irresponsible 
men,  too,  if  you  please,  will  be  unable  to  find  one 
word  from  anybody  in  the  Republican  ranks  op- 
posed to  that  popular  sovereignty  which  Judge 
Douglas  thinks  he  has  invented.  I  suppose  that 
Judge  Douglas  will  claim  in  a  little  while  that  he 
is  the  inventor  of  the  idea  that  the  people  should 
govern  themselves ;  that  nobody  ever  thought  of 
such  a  thing  until  he  brought  it  forward.  We  do 
not  remember  that  in  that  old  Declaration  of  In- 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  53 

dependence  it  is  said  that  '*We  hold  these  truths 
to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;  that  to  se- 
cure these  rights,  governments  are  instituted 
among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed."  There  is  the  origin 
of  popular  sovereignty.  Who,  then,  shall  come 
in  at  this  day  and  claim  that  he  invented  it? 

The  Lecompton  constitution  connects  itself 
with  this  question,  for  it  is  in  this  matter  of  the 
Lecompton  constitution  that  our  friend  Judge 
Douglas  claims  such  vast  credit.  I  agree  that  in 
opposing  the  Lecompton  constitution,  so  far  as  I 
can  perceive,  he  was  right.  I  do  not  deny  that  at 
all ;  and,  gentlemen,  you  will  readily  see  why  I 
could  not  deny  it,  even  if  I  wanted  to.  But  I  do 
not  wish  to ;  for  all  the  Republicans  in  the  nation 
opposed  it,  and  they  would  have  opposed  it  just 
as  much  without  Judge  Douglas's  aid  as  with  it. 
They  had  all  taken  ground  against  it,  long  before 
he  did.  Why,  the  reason  that  he  urges  against  that 
constitution  I  urged  against  him  a  year  before.  I 
have  the  printed  speech  in  my  hand.  The  argu- 
ment that  he  makes  why  that  constitution  should 
not  be  adopted,  that  the  people  were  not  fairly 
represented  nor  allowed  to  vote,  I  pointed  out  in 
a  speech  a  year  ago,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand 
now,  that  no  fair  chance  was  to  be  given  to  the 
people.  Y'Read  it;  read  it."'\  I  shall  not  waste 
your  time  by  trying  to  read  it.  ["Read  it;  read 
it."]  Gentlemen,  reading  from  speeches  is  a  very 
tedious  business,  particularly  for  an  old  man  who 
has  to  put  on  spectacles,  and  more  so  if  the  man 
be  so  tall  that  he  has  to  bend  over  to  the  light. 


54  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

A  little  more  now  as  to  this  matter  of  popular 
sovereignty  and  the  Lecompton  constitution.  The 
Lecompton  constitution,  as  the  judge  tells  us,  was 
defeated.  The  defeat  of  it  was  a  good  thing,  or 
it  was  not.  He  thinks  the  defeat  of  it  was  a  good 
thing,  and  so  do  I,  and  we  agree  in  that.  Who 
defeated  it?  \^A  voice:  "Judge  Douglas/']  Yes, 
he  furnished  himself,  and  if  you  suppose  he  con- 
trolled the  other  Democrats  that  went  with  him, 
he  furnished  three  votes,  while  the  Republicans 
furnished  twenty. 

That  is  what  he  did  to  defeat  it.  In  the  House 
of  Representatives  he  and  his  friends  furnished 
some  twenty  votes,  and  the  Republicans  fur- 
nished ninety  odd.  Now,  who  was  it  that  did 
the  work?  [A  voice:  "Douglas/']  Why,  yes, 
Douglas  did  it !    To  be  sure  he  did. 

Let  us,  however,  put  that  proposition  another 
way.  The  Republicans  could  not  have  done  it 
without  Judge  Douglas.  Could  he  have  done  it 
without  them  ?  Which  could  have  come  the  near- 
est to  doing  it  without  the  other?  [A  voice: 
''Who  killed  the  hill?"  Another  voice:  "Doug- 
las/'] Ground  was  taken  against  it  by  the  Re- 
publicans long  before  Douglas  did  it.  The  pro- 
portion of  opposition  to  that  measure  is  about 
five  to  one.  [A  voice:  "Why  don't  they  come  out 
on  it?"]  You  don't  know  what  you  are  talking 
about,  my  friend.  I  am  quite  willing  to  answer 
any  gentleman  in  the  crowd  who  asks  an  intelli- 
gent question. 

Now,  who,  in  all  this  country,  has  ever  found 
any  of  our  friends  of  Judge  Douglas's  way  of 
thinking,  and  who  have  acted  upon  this  main 
question,  that  have  ever  thought  of  uttering  a 
word  in  behalf  of  Judge  Trumbull?     \^A  voice: 


1858]  AT  CHICAGO  55 

''We  have."]  I  defy  you  to  show  a  printed  reso- 
lution passed  in  a  Democratic  meetin^^.  I  take  it 
upon  myself  to  defy  any  man  to  show  a  printed 
resolution  of  a  Democratic  meeting,  large  or 
small,  in  favor  of  Judge  Trumbull,  or  any  of  the 
five  to  one  Republicans  who  beat  that  bill.  Every- 
thing m.ust  be  for  the  Democrats !  They  did 
everything,  and  the  five  to  one  that  really  did 
the  thing  they  snub  over,  and  they  do  not  seem  to 
remember  that  they  have  an  existence  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth. 

Gentlemen,  I  fear  that  I  shall  become  tedious. 
I  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject  to  take  hold  of 
another.  I  take  up  that  part  of  Judge  Douglas's 
speech  in  which  he  respectfully  attended  to  me. 

Judge  Douglas  made  two  points  upon  my  re- 
cent speech  at  Springfield.  He  says  they  are  to 
be  the  issues  of  this  campaign.  The  first  one  of 
these  points  he  bases  upon  the  language  in  a 
speech  which  I  delivered  at  Springfield,  which  I 
believe  I  can  quote  correctly  from  memory.  I 
said  there  that  "we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth 
year  since  a  policy  was  instituted  for  the  avowed 
object  and  with  the  confident  promise  of  putting 
an  end  to  slavery  agitation ;  under  the  operation 
of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  I  believe 
it  v/ill  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed.  'A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved" 
— I  am  quoting  from  my  speech — 'T  do  not  expect 
the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to 
be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other.     Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 


56  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where 
the  pubHc  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in 
the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South." 

That  is  the  paragraph!  In  this  paragraph 
which  I  have  quoted  in  your  hearing,  and  to 
which  I  ask  the  attention  of  all.  Judge  Douglas 
thinks  he  discovers  great  political  heresy.  I  want 
your  attention  particularly  to  what  he  has  in- 
ferred from  it.  He  says  I  am  in  favor  of  mak- 
ing all  the  States  of  this  Union  uniform  in  al] 
their  internal  regulations ;  that  in  all  their  domes- 
tic concerns  I  am  in  favor  of  making  them  en- 
tirely uniform.  He  draws  this  inference  from  the 
language  I  have  quoted  to  you.  He  says  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  making  war  by  the  North  upon 
the  South  for  the  extinction  of  slavery;  that  I 
am  also  in  favor  of  inviting  (as  he  expresses  it) 
the  South  to  a  war  upon  the  North,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  nationalizing  slavery.  Now,  it  is  singu- 
lar enough,  if  you  will  carefully  read  that  passage 
over,  that  I  did  not  say  that  I  was  in  favor  of 
anything  in  it.  I  only  said  what  I  expected  would 
take  place.  I  made  a  prediction  only — it  may 
have  been  a  foolish  one,  perhaps.  I  did  not  even 
say  that  I  desired  that  slavery  should  be  put  in 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  do  say  so,  now, 
however,  so  there  need  be  no  longer  any  difficulty 
about  that.  It  may  be  written  down  in  the  great 
speech. 

Gentlemen,  Judge  Douglas  informed  you  that 
this  speech  of  mine  was  probably  carefully  pre- 
pared. I  admit  that  it  was.  I  am  not  master  of 
language ;  I  have  not  a  fine  education ;  I  am  not 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  57 

capable  of  entering  into  a  disquisition  upon  dia- 
lectics, as  I  believe  you  call  it;  but  I  do  not  be- 
lieve the  language  I  employed  bears  any  such 
construction  as  Judge  Douglas  puts  upon  it.  But 
I  don't  care  about  a  quibble  in  regard  to  words. 
I  know  what  I  meant,  and  I  will  not  leave  this 
crowd  in  doubt,  if  I  can  explain  it  to  them,  what 
I  really  meant  in  the  use  of  that  paragraph. 

I  am  not,  in  the  first  place,  unaware  that  this 
government  has  endured  eighty-two  years  half 
slave  and  half  free.  I  know  that.  I  am  toler- 
ably well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  coun- 
try, and  I  know  that  it  has  endured  eighty-two 
years  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  believe — and 
that  is  what  I  meant  to  allude  to  there — I  beheve 
it  has  endured  because  during  all  that  time,  until 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  public 
mind  did  rest  all  the  time  in  the  belief  that  slavery 
was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  That  was 
what  gave  us  the  rest  that  we  had  through  that 
period  of  eighty-two  years ;  at  least,  so  I  believe. 
I  have  always  hated  slavery,  I  think,  as  much  as 
any  Abolitionist — I  have  been  an  old-line  Whig — 
I  have  always  hated  it,  but  I  have  always  been 
quiet  about  it  until  this  new  era  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Nebraska  bill  began.  I  always  be- 
lieved that  everybody  was  against  it,  and  that  it 
was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  [Pointing 
to  Mr.  Browning,  who  stood  near  hy,'\  Brown- 
ing thought  so ;  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  have 
rested  in  the  belief  that  slavery  was  in  course  of 
ultimate  extinction.  They  had  reason  so  to 
believe. 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  its  at- 
tendant history  led  the  people  to  believe  so,  and 
that  such  was  the  belief  of  the  framers  of  the 


58  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

Constitution  itself.  Why  did  those  old  men, 
about  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, decree  that  slavery  should  not  go  into  the 
new  Territory,  where  it  had  not  already  gone? 
Why  declare  that  within  twenty  years  the  Afri- 
can slave-trade,  by  which  slaves  are  supplied, 
might  be  cut  off  by  Congress?  Why  were  all 
these  acts?  I  might  enumerate  more  of  these 
acts — but  enough.  What  were  they  but  a  clear 
indication  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
intended  and  expected  the  ultimate  extinction  of 
that  institution?  And  now,  when  I  say, — as  I 
said  in  my  speech  that  Judge  Douglas  has  quoted 
from, — when  I  say  that  I  think  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  resist  the  farther  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction, 
I  only  mean  to  say  that  they  will  place  it  where 
the  founders  of  this  government  originally  placed 
it. 

I  have  said  a  hundred  times,  and  I  have  now 
no  inclination  to  take  it  back,  that  I  believe  there 
is  no  right  and  ought  to  be  no  inclination  in  the 
people  of  the  free  States  to  enter  into  the  slave 
States  and  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery 
at  all.  I  have  said  that  always ;  Judge  Douglas 
has  heard  me  say  it — if  not  quite  a  hundred  times, 
at  least  as  good  as  a  hundred  times ;  and  when  it 
is  said  that  I  am  in  favor  of  interfering  with 
slavery  where  it  exists,  I  know  it  is  unwarranted 
by  anything  I  have  ever  intended,  and,  as  I  be- 
lieve, by  anything  I  have  ever  said.  If  by  any 
means  I  have  ever  used  language  which  could 
fairly  be  so  construed  (as,  however,  I  believe  I 
never  have),  I  now  correct  it. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  inference  that  Judge 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  59 

Douglas  draws,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  setting  the 
sections  at  war  with  one  another.  I  know  that  I 
never  meant  any  such  thing,  and  I  beheve  that  no 
fair  mind  can  infer  any  such  thing  from  any- 
thing I  have  ever  said. 

Now  in  relation  to  his  inference  that  I  am  in 
favor  of  a  general  consolidation  of  all  the  local 
institutions  of  the  various  States.  I  will  attend  to 
that  for  a  little  while,  and  try  to  inquire,  if  I  can, 
how  on  earth  it  could  be  that  any  man  could  draw 
such  an  inference  from  anything  I  said.  I  have 
said  very  many  times  in  Judge  Douglas's  hear- 
ing that  no  man  believed  more  than  I  in  the 
principle  of  self-government;  that  it  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  all  my  ideas  of  just  government  from 
beginning  to  end.  I  have  denied  that  his  use  of 
that  term  applies  properly.  But  for  the  thing  it- 
self I  deny  that  any  man  has  ever  gone  ahead 
of  me  in  his  devotion  to  the  principle,  whatever 
he  may  have  done  in  efficiency  in  advocating  it. 
I  think  that  I  have  said  it  in  your  hearing — that 
I  believe  each  individual  is  naturally  entitled  to 
do  as  he  pleases  with  himself  and  the  fruit  of  his 
labor,  so  far  as  it  in  no  wise  interferes  with  any 
other  man's  rights;  that  each  community,  as  a 
State,  has  a  right  to  do  exactly  as  it  pleases  with 
all  the  concerns  within  that  State  that  interfere 
with  the  right  of  no  other  State;  and  that  the 
General  Government,  upon  principle,  has  no  right 
to  interfere  with  anything  other  than  that  general 
class  of  things  that  does  concern  the  whole.  I 
have  said  that  at  all  times.  I  have  said  as 
illustrations  that  I  do  not  believe  in  the  right  of 
Illinois  to  interfere  with  the  cranberry  laws  of 
Indiana,  the  oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the  liquor 
laws  of  Maine.    I  have  said  these  things  over  and 


6o  SPEECHES  tjuly  lo 

over  again,  and  I  repeat  them  here  as  my  senti- 
ments. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  Judge  Douglas  infers,  be- 
cause I  hope  to  see  slavery  put  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  Illi- 
nois going  over  and  interfering  with  the  cran- 
berry laws  of  Indiana  ?  What  can  authorize  him 
to  draw  any  such  inference?  I  suppose  there 
might  be  one  thing  that  at  least  enabled  him  to 
draw  such  an  inference  that  would  not  be  true 
with  me  or  many  others ;  that  is,  because  he  looks 
upon  all  this  matter  of  slavery  as  an  exceedingly 
little  thing — this  matter  of  keeping  one  sixth  of 
the  population  of  the  whole  nation  in  a  state  of 
oppression  and  tyranny  unequaled  in  the  world. 
He  looks  upon  it  as  being  an  exceedingly  little 
thing,  only  equal  to  the  question  of  the  cranberry 
laws  of  Indiana — as  something  having  no  moral 
question  in  it — as  something  on  a  par  with  the 
question  of  whether  a  man  shall  pasture  his  land 
with  cattle  or  plant  it  with  tobacco — so  little  and 
so  small  a  thing  that  he  concludes,  if  I  could  de- 
sire that  anything  should  be  done  to  bring  about 
the  ultimate  extinction  of  that  little  thing,  I  must 
be  in  favor  of  bringing  about  an  amalgamation 
of  all  the  other  little  things  in  the  Union.  Now, 
it  so  happens — and  there,  I  presume,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  this  mistake — that  the  judge  thinks 
thus;  and  it  so  happens  that  there  is  a  vast  por- 
tion of  the  American  people  that  do  not  look  upon 
that  matter  as  being  this  very  little  thing.  They 
look  upon  it  as  a  vast  moral  evil ;  they  can  prove 
it  as  such  by  the  writings  of  those  who  gave  us 
the  blessings  of  liberty  which  we  enjoy,  and  that 
they  so  looked  upon  it,  and  not  as  an  evil  merely 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  6i 

confining  itself  to  the  States  where  it  is  situated ; 
and  while  we  agree  that,  by  the  Constitution  we 
assented  to,  in  the  States  where  it  exists  we  have 
no  right  to  interfere  with  it,  because  it  is  in  the 
Constitution,  we  are  by  both  duty  and  inclination 
to  stick  by  that  Constitution  in  all  its  letter  and 
spirit  from  beginning  to  end. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  my  disposition — my  wish 
— to  have  all  the  State  legislatures  blotted  out, 
and  to  have  one  consolidated  government,  and  a 
uniformity  of  domestic  regulations  in  all  the 
States  ;  by  which  I  suppose  it  is  meant,  if  we  raise 
corn  here,  we  must  make  sugar  cane  grow  here 
too,  and  we  must  make  those  which  grow  North 
grow  in  the  South.  All  this  I  suppose  he  under- 
stands I  am  in  favor  of  doing.  Now,  so  much 
for  all  this  nonsense — for  I  must  call  it  so.  The 
judge  can  have  no  issue  with  me  on  a  question  of 
establishing  uniformity  in  the  domestic  regula- 
tions of  the  States. 

A  little  now  on  the  other  point — the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  Another  of  the  issues  he  says  that  is 
to  be  made  with  me,  is  upon  his  devotion  to 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  my  opposition 
to  it. 

I  have  expressed  heretofore,  and  I  now  repeat, 
my  opposition  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision;  but  I 
should  be  allowed  to  state  the  nature  of  that  op- 
position, and  I  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  do  so. 
What  is  fairly  implied  by  the  term  Judge  Doug- 
las has  used,  "resistance  to  the  decision"?  I  do 
not  resist  it.  If  I  wanted  to  take  Dred  Scott 
from  his  master,  I  would  be  interfering  with 
property,  and  that  terrible  difficulty  that  Judge 
Douglas  speaks  of,  of  interfering  with  property, 
would  arise.     But  I  am  doing  no  such  thing  as 


62  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

that ;  all  that  I  am  doing  is  refusing  to  obey  it  as 
a  political  rule.  If  I  were  in  Congress,  and  a 
vote  should  come  up  on  a  question  whether 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  a  new  Territory, 
in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  would  vote 
that  it  should. 

That  is  what  I  would  do.  Judge  Douglas  said 
last  night  that  before  the  decision  he  might  ad- 
vance his  opinion,  and  it  might  be  contrary  to  the 
decision  when  it  was  made ;  but  after  it  was  made 
he  would  abide  by  it  until  it  was  reversed.  Just 
so!  We  let  this  property  abide  by  the  decision, 
but  we  will  try  to  reverse  that  decision.  We  will 
try  to  put  it  where  Judge  Douglas  would  not  ob- 
ject, for  he  says  he  will  obey  it  until  it  is  reversed. 
Somebody  has  to  reverse  that  decision,  since  it  is 
made ;  and  we  mean  to  reverse  it,  and  we  mean 
to  do  it  peaceably. 

What  are  the  uses  of  decisions  of  courts? 
They  have  two  uses.  As  rules  of  property  they 
have  two  uses.  First — they  decide  upon  the 
question  before  the  court.  They  decide  in  this 
case  that  Dred  Scott  is  a  slave.  Nobody  resists 
that.  Not  only  that,  but  they  say  to  everybody 
else  that  persons  standing  just  as  Dred  Scott 
stands  are  as  he  is.  That  is,  they  say  that  when  a 
question  comes  up  upon  another  person,  it  will  be 
so  decided  again,  unless  the  court  decides  in  an- 
other way,  unless  the  court  overrules  its  decision. 
Well,  we  mean  to  do  what  we  can  to  have  the 
court  decide  the  other  way.  That  is  one  thing 
wt  mean  to  try  to  do. 

The  sacredness  that  Judge  Douglas  throws 
around  this  decision  is  a  degree  of  sacredness 
that  has  never  been  before  thrown  around  any 
other  decision.     I  have  never  heard  of  such  a 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  63 

thing.  Why,  decisions  apparently  contrary  to 
that^  decision,  or  that  good  lawyers  thought 
were  contrary  to  that  decision,  have  been 
made  by  that  very  court  before.  It  is  the 
first  of  its  kind;  it  is  an  astonisher  in  legal 
history.  It  is  a  new  wonder  of  the  world. 
It  is  based  upon  falsehood  in  the  main  as  to 
the  facts, — allegations  of  facts  upon  which  it 
stands  are  not  facts  at  all  in  many  instances, — 
and  no  decision  made  on  any  question — the  first 
instance  of  a  decision  made  under  so  many  un- 
favorable circumstances — thus  placed,  has  ever 
been  held  by  the  profession  as  law,  and  it  has  al- 
ways needed  confirmation  before  the  lawyers  re- 
garded it  as  settled  law.  But  Judge  Douglas 
will  have  it  that  all  hands  must  take  this  extraor- 
dinary decision,  made  under  these  extraordi- 
nary circumstances,  and  give  their  vote  in  Con- 
gress in  accordance  with  it,  yield  to  it  and  obey  it 
in  every  possible  sense.  Circumstances  alter 
cases.  Do  not  gentlemen  here  remember  the  case 
of  that  same  Supreme  Court,  somie  twenty-five  or 
thirty  years  ago,  deciding  that  a  national  bank 
was  constitutional?  I  ask  if  somebody  does  not 
remember  that  a  national  bank  was  declared  to 
be  constitutional?  Such  is  the  truth,  whether  it 
be  remembered  or  not.  The  bank  charter  ran 
out,  and  a  recharter  was  granted  by  Congress. 
That  recharter  was  laid  before  General  Jackson. 
It  was  urged  upon  him,  when  he  denied  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  bank,  that  the  Supreme  Court 
had  decided  that  it  was  constitutional ;  and  Gen- 
eral Jackson  then  said  that  the  Supreme  Court 
had  no  right  to  lay  down  a  rule  to  govern  a  co- 
ordinate branch  of  the  government,  the  members 
of  which  had  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution — 


64  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

that  each  member  had  sworn  to  support  that 
Constitution  as  he  understood  it.  I  will  venture 
here  to  say  that  I  have  heard  Judge  Douglas  say 
that  he  approved  of  General  Jackson  for  that  act. 
What  has  now  become  of  all  his  tirade  against 
''resistance  to  the  Supreme  Court"? 

My  fellow-citizens,  getting  back  a  little,  for  I 
pass  from  these  points,  when  Judge  Douglas 
makes  his  threat  of  annihilation  upon  the  ''alli- 
ance," he  is  cautious  to  say  that  that  warfare  of 
his  is  to  fall  upon  the  leaders  of  the  Republican 
party.  Almost  every  word  he  utters,  and  every 
distinction  he  makes,  has  its  significance.  He 
means  for  the  Republicans  who  do  not  count 
themselves  as  leaders  to  be  his  friends ;  he  makes 
no  fuss  over  them;  it  is  the  leaders  that  he  is 
making  war  upon.  He  wants  it  understood  that 
the  mass  of  the  Republican  party  are  really  his 
friends.  It  is  only  the  leaders  that  are  doing 
something,  that  are  intolerant,  and  require  ex- 
termination at  his  hands.  As  this  is  clearly  and 
unquestionably  the  light  in  which  he  presents 
that  m.atter,  I  want  to  ask  your  attention,  ad- 
dressing myself  to  Republicans  here,  that  I  may 
ask  you  somie  questions  as  to  where  you,  as  the 
Republican  party,  would  be  placed  if  you  sus- 
tained Judge  Douglas  in  his  present  position  by  a 
reelection?  I  do  not  claim,  gentlemen,  to  be  un- 
selfish ;  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  would  not  like  to 
go  to  the  United  States  Senate;  I  make  no  such 
hypocritical  pretense,  but  I  do  say  to  you  that  in 
this  mighty  issue,  it  is  nothing  to  you — nothing 
to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  nation — whether 
or  not  Judge  Douglas  or  myself  shall  ever  be 
heard  of  after  this  night ;  it  may  be  a  trifle  to 
either  of  us,  but  in  connection  with  this  mighty 


i858]  'AT  CHICAGO  65 

question,  upon  which  hang  the  destinies  of  the 
nation,  perhaps,  it  is  absolutely  nothing.  But 
where  will  you  be  placed  if  you  reindorse  Judge 
Douglas?  Don't  you  know  how  apt  he  is — how 
exceedingly  anxious  he  is  at  all  times  to  seize 
upon  anything  and  everything  to  persuade  you 
that  something  he  has  done  you  did  yourselves? 
Why,  he  tried  to  persuade  you  last  night  that  our 
Illinois  legislature  instructed  him  to  introduce  the 
Nebraska  bill.  There  was  nobody  in  that  legisla- 
ture ever  thought  of  such  a  thing;  and  when  he 
first  introduced  the  bill,  he  never  thought  of  it; 
but  still  he  fights  furiously  for  the  proposition, 
and  that  he  did  it  because  there  was  a  standing 
instruction  to  our  senators  to  be  always  introdu- 
cing Nebraska  bills.  He  tells  you  he  is  for  the 
Cincinnati  platform;  he  tells  you  he  is  for  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  He  tells  you,  not  in  his 
speech  last  night,  but  substantially  in  a  former 
speech,  that  he  cares  not  if  slavery  is  voted  up  or 
down ;  he  tells  you  the  struggle  on  Lecompton  is 
past — it  may  come  up  again  or  not,  and  if  it  does 
he  stands  where  he  stood  when  in  spite  of  him 
and  his  opposition  you  built  up  the  Republican 
party.  If  you  indorse  him,  you  tell  him  you  do 
not  care  whether  slavery  be  voted  up  or  down, 
and  he  will  close,  or  try  to  close,  your  mouths 
with  his  declaration,  repeated  by  the  day,  the 
week,  the  month,  and  the  year.  I  think,  in  the 
position  in  which  Judge  Douglas  stood  in  oppos- 
ing the  Lecompton  constitution,  he  was  right; 
he  does  not  know  that  it  will  return,  but  if  it  does 
we  may  know  where  to  find  him,  and  if  it  does 
not  we  may  know  where  to  look  for  him,  and  that 
is  on  the  Cincinnati  platform.  Now  I  could  ask 
the  Republican  party,  after  all  the  hard  names 


66  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

Judge  Douglas  has  called  them  by,  all  his  re- 
peated charges  of  their  inclination  to  marry  with 
and  hug  negroes,  all  his  declarations  of  Black 
Republicanism, — by  the  way,  we  are  improving, 
the  black  has  got  rubbed  off, — but  with  all  that, 
if  he  be  indorsed  by  Republican  votes,  where  do 
you  stand?  Plainly,  you  stand  ready  saddled, 
bridled,  and  harnessed,  and  waiting  to  be  driven 
over  to  the  slavery  extension  camp  of  the  nation, 
— just  ready  to  be  driven  over,  tied  together  in 
a  lot, — to  be  driven  over,  every  man  with  a 
rope  around  his  neck,  that  halter  being  held  by 
Judge  Douglas.  That  is  the  question.  If  Repub- 
lican men  have  been  in  earnest  in  what  they  have 
done,  I  think  they  had  better  not  do  it;  but  I 
think  the  Republican  party  is  made  up  of  those 
who,  as  far  as  they  can  peaceably,  will  oppose 
the  extension  of  slavery,  and  who  will  hope  for 
its  ultimate  extinction.  If  they  believe  it  is  wrong 
in  grasping  up  the  new  lands  of  the  continent,  and 
keeping  them  from  the  settlem.ent  of  free  white 
laborers,  who  want  the  land  to  bring  up  their 
families  upon ;  if  they  are  in  earnest,  although 
they  may  make  a  mistake,  they  will  grow  restless, 
and  the  time  will  come  when  they  will  come  back 
again  and  reorganize,  if  not  by  the  same  name, 
at  least  upon  the  same  principles  as  their  party 
now  has.  It  is  better,  then,  to  save  the  work 
while  it  is  begun.  You  have  done  the  labor; 
maintain  it,  keep  it.  If  men  choose  to  serve  you, 
go  with  them;  but  as  you  have  made  up  your 
organization  upon  principle,  stand  by  it;  for,  as 
surely  as  God  reigns  over  you,  and  has  inspired 
your  mind,  and  given  you  a  sense  of  propriety, 
and  continues  to  give  you  hope,  so  surely  will  you 
still  cling  to  these  ideas,  and  you  will  at  last  come 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  67 

back  again  after  your  wanderings,  merely  to  do 
your  work  over  again. 

We  were  often — more  than  once  at  least — in 
the  course  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  last  night 
reminded  that  this  government  was  made  for 
white  men — that  he  believed  it  was  made  for 
white  men.  Well,  that  is  putting  it  into  a  shape 
in  which  no  one  wants  to  deny  it;  but  the  judge 
then  goes  into  his  passion  for  drawing  inferences 
that  are  not  warranted.  I  protest  now  and  for- 
ever, against  that  counterfeit  logic  which  pre- 
sumes that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman 
for  a  slave,  I  do  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife. 
My  understanding  is  that  I  need  not  have  her  for 
either ;  but,  as  God  made  us  separate,  we  can 
leave  one  another  alone,  and  do  one  another  much 
good  thereby.  There  are  white  men  enough  to 
marry  all  the  white  women,  and  enough  black 
men  to  marry  all  the  black  women,  and  in  God's 
name  let  them  be  so  married.  The  judge  regales 
us  with  the  terrible  enormities  that  take  place  by 
the  mixture  of  races ;  that  the  inferior  race  bears 
the  superior  down.  Why,  judge,  if  we  do  not  let 
them  get  together  in  the  Territories,  they  won't 
mix  there.  [A  voice:  ''Three  cheers  for  Lin- 
coln T  The  cheers  were  given  with  a  hearty 
good  zvilL]  I  should  say  at  least  that  that  is  a 
self-evident  truth. 

Now,  it  happens  that  we  meet  together  once 
every  year,  somewhere  about  the  4th  of  July,  for 
some  reason  or  other.  These  4th  of  July  gather- 
ings I  suppose  have  their  uses.  If  you  will  in- 
dulge me,  I  will  state  what  I  suppose  to  be  some 
of  them. 

We  are  now  a  mighty  nation :  we  are  thirty, 
or  about  thirty,  millions  of  people,  and  we  own 


68  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

and  inhabit  about  one  fifteenth  part  of  the  dry- 
land of  the  whole  earth.  We  run  our  memory 
back  over  the  pages  of  history  for  about  eighty- 
two  years,  and  we  discover  that  we  were  then  a 
very  small  people,  in  point  of  numbers  vastly 
inferior  to  what  we  are  now,  with  a  vastly  less 
extent  of  country,  with  vastly  less  of  everything 
we  deem  desirable  among  men.  We  look  upon 
the  change  as  exceedingly  advantageous  to  us 
and  to  our  posterity,  and  we  fix  upon  something 
that  happened  away  back  as  in  some  way  or  other 
being  connected  with  this  rise  of  prosperity.  We 
find  a  race  of  men  living  in  that  day  whom  we 
claim  as  our  fathers  and  grandfathers ;  they  were 
iron  men ;  they  fought  for  the  principle  that  they 
were  contending  for ;  and  we  understood  that  by 
what  they  then  did  it  has  followed  that  the  de- 
gree of  prosperity  which  we  now  enjoy  has  come 
to  us.  We  hold  this  annual  celebration  to  remind 
ourselves  of  all  the  good  done  in  this  process  of 
time,  of  how  it  was  done  and  who  did  it,  and  how 
we  are  historically  connected  with  it;  and  we  go 
from  these  meetings  in  better  humor  with  our- 
selves— we  feel  more  attached  the  one  to  the 
other,  and  more  firmly  bound  to  the  country  we 
inhabit.  In  every  way  we  are  better  men,  in  the 
age,  and  race,  and  country  in  which  we  live,  for 
these  celebrations.  But  after  we  have  done  all 
this,  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  whole.  There 
is  something  else  connected  with  it.  We  have, 
besides  these  men — descended  by  blood  from  our 
ancestors — among  us,  perhaps  half  our  people 
who  are  not  descendants  at  all  of  these  men ;  they 
are  men  who  have  come  from  Europe, — German, 
Irish,  French,  and  Scandinavian, — men  that  have 
come  from  Europe  themselves,  or  whose  ances- 


i858]  AT  CHICAGO  69 

tors  have  come  hither  and  settled  here,  finding 
themselves  our  equal  in  all  things.  If  they  look 
back  through  this  history  to  trace  their  connec- 
tion with  those  days  by  blood,  they  find  they  have 
none ;  they  cannot  carry  themselves  back  into 
that  glorious  epoch  and  make  themselves  feel 
that  they  are  part  of  us ;  but  when  they  look 
through  that  old  Declaration  of  Independence, 
they  find  that  those  old  men  say  that  "We  hold 
these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,"  and  then  they  feel  that  that  moral 
sentiment  taught  in  that  day  evidences  their  rela- 
tion to  those  men,  that  it  is  the  father  of  all  moral 
principle  in  them,  and  that  they  have  a  right  to 
claim  it  as  though  they  were  blood  of  the  blood, 
and  flesh  of  the  flesh,  of  the  men  who  wrote  that 
Declaration,  and  so  they  are.  That  is  the  electric 
cord  in  that  Declaration  that  links  the  hearts  of 
patriotic  and  liberty-loving  men  together,  that 
will  link  those  patriotic  hearts  as  long  as  the  love 
of  freedom  exists  in  the  minds  of  men  throughout 
the  world. 

Now,  sirs,  for  the  purpose  of  squaring  things 
w^ith  this  idea  of  "don't  care  if  slavery  is  voted  up 
or  voted  down,"  for  sustaining  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  for  holding  that  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence did  not  mean  anything  at  all,  we  have 
Judge  Douglas  giving  his  exposition  of  what  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  means,  and  we  have 
him  saying  that  the  people  of  America  are  equal 
to  the  people  of  England.  According  to  his  con- 
struction, you  Germans  are  not  connected  with 
it.  Now  I  ask  you,  in  all  soberness,  if  all  these 
things,  if  indulged  in,  if  ratified,  if  confirmed  and 
indorsed,  if  taught  to  our  children,  and  repeated 
to  them,  do  not  tend  to  rub  out  the  sentiment  of 


70  SPEECHES  [July  lo 

liberty  in  the  country,  and  to  transform  this  gov- 
ernment into  a  government  of  some  other  form? 
Those  arguments  that  are  made,  that  the  inferior 
race  are  to  be  treated  with  as  much  allowance 
as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying;  that  as  much  is 
to  be  done  for  them  as  their  condition  will  allow 
— what  are  these  arguments?  They  are  the  ar- 
guments that  kings  have  made  for  enslaving  the 
people  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  You  will  find 
that  all  the  arguments  in  favor  of  kingcraft  were 
of  this  class ;  they  always  bestrode  the  necks  of 
the  people — not  that  they  wanted  to  do  it,  but 
because  the  people  were  better  off  for  being  rid- 
den. That  is  their  argument,  and  this  argument 
of  the  judge  is  the  same  old  serpent  that  says, 
You  work  and  I  eat,  you  toil  and  I  will  enjoy  the 
fruits  of  it.  Turn  in  whatever  way  you  will — 
whether  it  come  from  the  mouth  of  a  king,  an 
excuse  for  enslaving  the  people  of  his  country, 
or  from  the  mouth  of  men  of  one  race  as  a  reason 
for  enslaving  the  men  of  another  race,  it  is  all 
the  same  old  serpent,  and  I  hold  if  that  course  of 
argumentation  that  is  made  for  the  purpose  of 
convincing  the  public  mind  that  we  should  not 
care  about  this  should  be  granted,  it  does  not  stop 
with  the  negro.  I  should  like  to  know — taking 
this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  de- 
clares that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and 
making  exceptions  to  it, — where  will  it  stop?  If 
one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  not 
another  say  it  does  not  mean  some  other  man? 
If  that  Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the 
statute-book  in  which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out ! 
Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it?  If  it  is  not  true,  let 
us  tear  it  out  [Cries  of  "No,  no"].  Let  us  stick 
to  it,  then ;  let  us  stand  firmly  by  it,  then. 


i8s8]  AT  CHICAGO  71 

It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  condi- 
tions that  make  necessities  and  impose  them  upon 
us,  and  to  the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed 
upon  a  man,  he  must  submit  to  it.  I  think  that 
was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves 
when  we  estabhshed  this  government.  We  had 
slaves  among  us ;  we  could  not  get  our  Constitu- 
tion unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in  slav- 
ery; we  could  not  secure  the  good  we  did  secure 
if  we  grasped  for  more ;  but  having  by  necessity 
submitted  to  that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the 
principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let 
that  charter  stand  as  our  standard. 

My  friend  has  said  to  me  that  I  am  a  poor 
hand  to  quote  Scripture.  I  will  try  it  again, 
however.  It  is  said  in  one  of  the  admonitions  of 
our  Lord,  ''Be  ye  [therefore]  perfect  even  as 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect."  The 
Saviour,  I  suppose,  did  not  expect  that  any  hu- 
man creature  could  be  perfect  as  the  Father  in 
heaven ;  but  he  said,  ''As  your  father  in  heaven 
is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  He  set  that  up  as 
a  standard,  and  he  who  did  most  toward  reach- 
ing that  standard  attained  the  highest  degree  of 
moral  perfection.  So  I  say  in  relation  to  the 
principle  that  ail  men  are  created  equal,  let  it  be 
as  nearly  reached  as  we  can.  If  wc  cannot  give 
freedom  to  every  creature,  let  us  do  nothing  that 
will  impose  slavery  upon  any  other  creature.  Let 
us  then  turn  this  government  back  into  the  chan- 
nel in  which  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  orig- 
inally placed  it.  Let  us  stand  firmly  by  each  other. 
If  we  do  not  do  so,  we  are  tending  in  the  con- 
trary direction  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas 
proposes — not  intentionally — working  in  the 
traces  that  tend  to  make  this  one  universal  slave 


72  SPEECHES  [July  17 

nation.  He  is  one  that  runs  in  that  direction,  and 
as  such  I  resist  him. 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long- 
as  I  desired  to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say,  let  us 
discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the 
other  man,  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other 
race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be 
placed  in  an  inferior  position.  Let  us  discard  all 
these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout 
this  land,  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up  de- 
claring that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

My  friends,  I  could  not,  without  launching  off 
upon  some  new  topic,  which  would  detain  you  too 
long,  continue  to-night.  I  thank  you  for  this 
most  extensive  audience  that  you  have  furnished 
me  to-night.  I  leave  you,  hoping  that  the  lamp 
of  liberty  will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until  there 
shall  no  longer  be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created 
free  and  equal. 

The  Conspiracy  to  Nationalize  Slavery. 

Speech  at  Springfield,  III.     July  17,   1858. 

Fellow-citizens:  Another  election,  which  is 
deemed  an  important  one,  is  approaching;  and, 
as  I  suppose,  the  Republican  party  will  without 
much  difficulty  elect  their  State  ticket.  But  in 
regard  to  the  legislature,  we,  the  Republicans, 
labor  under  some  disadvantages.  In  the  first 
place,  we  have  a  legislature  to  elect  upon  an  ap- 
portionment of  the  representation  made  several 
years  ago,  when  the  proportion  of  the  population 
was  far  greater  in  the  South  (as  compared  with 
the  North)  than  it  now  is,  and  inasmuch  as  our 
opponents  hold  almost  entire  sway  in  the  South, 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  73 

and  we  a  correspondingly  large  majority  in  the 
North,  the  fact  that  we  are  now  to  be  represented 
as  we  were  years  ago,  when  the  population  was 
diiterent,  is  to  us  a  very  great  disadvantage.  We 
had  in  the  year  1855,  according  to  law,  a  census 
or  enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  taken  for  the 
purpose  of  a  new  apportionment  of  representa- 
tion. We  know  what  a  fair  apportionment  of 
representation  upon  that  census  would  give  us. 
We  know  that  it  could  not,  if  fairly  made,  fail  to 
give  the  Republican  party  from  six  to  ten  more 
members  of  the  legislature  than  they  can  prob- 
ably get  as  the  law  now  stands.  It  so  happened 
at  the  last  session  of  the  legislature,  that  our  op- 
ponents, holding  the  control  of  both  branches  of 
the  legislature,  steadily  refused  to  give  us  such 
an  apportionment  as  we  were  rightly  entitled  to 
have  upon  the  census  already  taken.  The  legis- 
lature steadily  refused  to  give  us  such  an  appor- 
tionment as  we  were  rightfully  entitled  to  have 
upon  the  census  taken  of  the  population  of 
the  State.  The  legislature  would  pass  no  bill 
upon  that  subject,  except  such  as  was  at  least  as 
tinfair  to  us  as  the  old  one,  and  in  which,  in  some 
instances,  two  men  in  the  Democratic  regions 
were  allov/ed  to  go  as  far  toward  sending  a  mem- 
ber to  the  legislature  as  three  were  in  the  Repub- 
lican regions.  Comparison  was  made  at  the  time 
as  to  representative  and  senatorial  districts,  which 
completely  demonstrated  that  such  was  the  fact. 
Such  a  bill  was  passed  and  tendered  to  the  Re- 
publican governor  for  his  signature ;  but  prin- 
cipally for  the  reasons  I  have  stated,  he  withheld 
his  approval,  and  the  bill  fell  without  becoming 
a  law. 

Another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor 


74  SPEECHES  [July  17 

is  that  there  are  one  or  two  Democratic  senators 
who  will  be  members  of  the  next  legislature,  and 
will  vote  for  the  election  of  senator,  who  are  hold- 
ing over  in  districts  in  which  we  could,  on  all 
reasonable  calculation,  elect  men  of  our  own,  if 
we  only  had  the  chance  of  an  election.  When  we 
consider  that  there  are  but  twenty-five  senators 
in  the  Senate,  taking  two  from  the  side  w'here 
they  rightfully  belong,  and  adding  them  to  the 
other,  is  to  us  a  disadvantage  not  to  be  lightly  re- 
garded. Still,  so  it  is ;  we  have  this  to  contend 
with.  Perhaps  there  is  no  ground  of  complaint 
on  our  part.  In  attending  to  the  many  things  in- 
volved in  the  last  general  election  for  President, 
governor,  auditor,  treasurer,  superintendent  of 
public  instruction,  members  of  Congress,  of  the 
legislature,  county  officers,  and  so  on,  we  allowed 
these  things  to  happen  by  want  of  sufficient  at- 
tention, and  we  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  our 
adversaries,  so  far  as  this  matter  is  concerned. 
But  we  have  some  cause  to  complain  of  the  re- 
fusal to  give  us  a  fair  apportionment. 

There  is  still  another  disadvantage  under 
which  we  labor,  and  to  which  I  will  ask  your  at- 
tention. It  arises  out  of  the  relative  positions  of 
the  two  persons  w^ho  stand  before  the  State  as 
candidates  for  the  Senate.  Senator  Douglas  is  of 
world-wide  renown.  All  the  anxious  politicians 
of  his  party,  or  who  have  been  of  his  party  for 
years  past,  have  been  looking  upon  him  as  cer- 
tainly, at  no  distant  day,  to  be  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  They  have  seen  in  his  round, 
jolly,  fruitful  face,  post-offices,  land-offices,  mar- 
shaiships,  and  cabinet  appointments,  chargeships 
and  foreign  missions,  bursting  and  sprouting  out 
in  wonderful  exuberance,  ready  to  be  laid  hold  of 


1858]  AT  SPRIXGFIELD  75 

by  their  greedy  hands.  And  as  they  have  been 
gazing  upon  this  attractive  picture  so  long,  they 
cannot,  in  the  httle  distraction  that  has  taken 
place  in  the  party,  bring  themselves  to  give  up  the 
charming  hope ;  but  with  greedier  anxiety  they 
rush  about  him,  sustain  him,  and  give  him 
marches,  triumphal  entries,  and  receptions  be- 
yond what  even  in  the  days  of  his  highest  pros- 
perity they  could  have  brought  about  in  his  favor. 
On  the  contrary,  nobody  has  ever  expected  me  to 
be  President.  In  my  poor,  lean,  lank  face  nobody 
has  ever  seen  that  any  cabbages  were  sprouting 
out.  These  are  disadvantages  all,  taken  together, 
that  the  Republicans  labor  under.  \\q  have  to 
fight  this  battle  upon  principle,  and  upon  principle 
alone.  I  am,  in  a  certain  sense,  made  the  stand- 
ard-bearer in  behalf  of  the  Republicans.  I  was 
made  so  merely  because  there  had  to  be  some  one 
so  placed,  I  being  in  no  wise  preferable  to  any 
other  one  of  the  twenty-five,  perhaps  a  hundred, 
we  have  in  the  Republican  ranks.  Then  I  say  I 
wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  and  borne  in 
mind,  that  we  have  to  fight  this  battle  without 
many — perhaps  without  any — of  the  external 
aids  which  are  brought  to  bear  against  us.  So  I 
hope  those  with  whom  I  am  surrounded  have 
principle  enough  to  nerve  themselves  for  the  task, 
and  leave  nothing  undone  that  can  be  fairly  done 
to  bring  about  the  right  result. 

After  Senator  Douglas  left  Washington,  as  his 
movements  were  made  known  by  the  public 
prints,  he  tarried  a  considerable  time  in  the  city 
of  Xew  York ;  and  it  was  heralded  that,  like  an- 
other Xapoleon,  he  was  lying  by  and  framing 
the  plan  of  his  campaign.  It  was  telegraphed 
to    Washington    City,    and    published    in    the 


76  SPEECHES  tjuly  17 

Union,  that  he  was  framing  his  plan  for  the 
purpose  of  going  to  IlHnois  to  pounce  upon  and 
annihilate  the  treasonable  and  disunion  speech 
which  Lincoln  had  made  here  on  the  i6th  of 
June.  Now,  I  do  suppose  that  the  judge  really 
spent  some  time  in  New  York  maturing  the  plan 
of  the  campaign,  as  his  friends  heralded  for  him. 
I  have  been  able,  by  noting  his  movements  since 
his  arrival  in  Illinois,  to  discover  evidences  con- 
firmatory of  that  allegation.  I  think  I  have  been 
able  to  see  what  are  the  material  points  of  that 
plan.  I  will,  for  a  little  while,  ask  your  attention 
to  some  of  them.  What  I  shall  point  out,  though 
not  showing  the  whole  plan,  are  nevertheless  the 
main  points,  as  I  suppose. 

They  are  not  very  numerous.  The  first  is  pop- 
ular sovereignty.  The  second  and  third  are  at- 
tacks upon  my  speech  made  on  the  i6th  of  June. 
Out  of  these  three  points — drawing  within  the 
range  of  popular  sovereignty  the  question  of  the 
Lecompton  constitution — he  makes  his  principal 
assault.  Upon  these  his  successive  speeches  are 
substantially  one  and  the  same.  On  this  matter 
of  popular  sovereignty  I  wish  to  be  a  little  care- 
ful. Auxiliary  to  these  main  points,  to  be  sure, 
are  their  thunderings  of  cannon,  their  marching 
and  music,  their  fizzle-gigs  and  fireworks ;  but  I 
will  not  waste  time  with  them.  They  are  but  the 
little  trappings  of  the  campaign. 

Coming  to  the  substance,  the  first  point,  "popu- 
lar sovereignty."  It  is  to  be  labeled  upon  the 
cars  in  which  he  travels ;  put  upon  the  hacks  he 
rides  in ;  to  be  flaunted  upon  the  arches  he  passes 
under,  and  the  banners  which  wave  over  him.  It 
is  to  be  dished  up  in  as  many  varieties  as  a  French 
cook  can  produce  soups  from  potatoes.     Now, 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  77 

as  this  is  so  great  a  staple  of  the  plan  of  the  cam- 
paign, it  is  worth  while  to  examine  it  carefully; 
and  if  we  examine  only  a  very  little,  and  do  not 
allow  ourselves  to  be  misled,  we  shall  be  able  to 
see  that  the  whole  thing  is  the  most  arrant  quix- 
otism that  was  ever  enacted  before  a  community. 
What  is  the  matter  of  popular  sovereignty  ?  The 
first  thing,  in  order  to  understand  it,  is  to  get  a 
good  definition  of  what  it  is,  and  after  that  to 
see  how  it  is  applied. 

I  suppose  almost  every  one  knows  that,  in  this 
controversy,  whatever  has  been  said  has  had  ref- 
erence to  the  question  of  negro  slavery.  We  have 
not  been  in  a  controversy  about  the  right  of  the 
people  to  govern  themselves  in  the  ordinary  mat- 
ters of  domestic  concern  in  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories. Mr.  Buchanan,  in  one  of  his  late  mes- 
sages (I  think  when  he  sent  up  the  Lecompton 
constitution),  urged  that  the  main  point  of  pub- 
lic attention  was  not  in  regard  to  the  great  va- 
riety of  small  domestic  matters,  but  was  directed 
to  the  question  of  negro  slavery;  and  he  asserts 
that  if  the  people  had  had  a  fair  chance  to  vote 
on  that  question,  there  was  no  reasonable  ground 
of  objection  in  regard  to  minor  questions.  Now, 
while  I  think  that  the  people  had  not  had  given, 
or  offered  them,  a  fair  chance  upon  that  slavery 
question,  still,  if  there  had  been  a  fair  submission 
to  a  vote  upon  that  main  question,  the  President's 
proposition  would  have  been  true  to  the  utter- 
most. Hence,  when  hereafter  I  speak  of  popu- 
lar sovereignty,  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  apply- 
ing what  I  say  to  the  question  of  slavery  only, 
not  to  other  minor  domestic  matters  of  a  Terri- 
tory or  State. 

Does  Judge  Douglas,  when  he  says  that  several 


78  SPEECHES  [July  17 

of  the  past  years  of  his  Hfe  have  been  devoted 
to  the  question  of  "popular  sovereignty,"  and  that 
all  the  remainder  of  his  life  shall  be  devoted  to  it, 
does  he  mean  to  say  that  he  has  been  devoting  his 
life  to  securing  to  the  people  of  the  Territories 
the  right  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories  ? 
If  he  means  so  to  say,  he  means  to  deceive ;  be- 
cause he  and  every  one  knows  that  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  he  approves  and 
makes  especial  ground  of  attack  upon  me  for  dis- 
approving, forbids  the  people  of  a  Territory  to 
exclude  slavery.  This  covers  the  whole  ground, 
from  the  settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches 
the  degree  of  maturity  entitling  it  to  form  a  State 
constitution.  So  far  as  all  that  ground  is  con- 
cerned, the  judge  is  not  sustaining  popular  sov- 
ereignty, but  absolutely  opposing  it.  He  sustains 
the  decision  which  declares  that  the  popular  will 
of  the  Territories  has  no  constitutional  power  to 
exclude  slavery  during  their  territorial  existence. 
This  being  so,  the  period  of  time  from  the  first 
settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches  the  point 
of  forming  a  State  constitution  is  not  the  thing 
that  the  judge  has  fought  for,  or  is  fighting  for; 
but  on  the  contrary,  he  has  fought  for,  and  is 
fighting  for  the  thing  that  annihilates  and  crushes 
out  that  same  popular  sovereignty.  . 

Well,  so  much  being  disposed  of,  what  is  left? 
Why,  he  is  contending  for  the  right  of  the  people, 
when  they  come  to  make  a  State  constitution,  to 
make  it  for  themselves,  and  precisely  as  best  suits 
themselves.  I  say  again,  that  is  quixotic.  I  defy 
contradiction  when  I  declare  that  the  judge  can 
find  no  one  to  oppose  him  on  that  proposition. _  I 
repeat,  there  is  nobody  opposing  that  proposition 
on  principle.     Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.'    I 


2858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD 


79 


know  that,  with  reference  to  the  Lecompton  con- 
stitution, I  may  be  misunderstood ;  but  when  you 
understand  me  correctly,  my  proposition  will  be 
true  and  accurate.  Nobody  is  opposing,  or  has  op- 
posed, the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  form  a 
constitution,  to  form  it  for  themselves.  Mr. 
Buchanan  and  his  friends  have  not  done  it ;  they, 
too,  as  well  as  the  Republicans  and  the  Anti- 
Lecompton  Democrats,  have  not  done  it;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  they  together  have  insisted  on  the 
right  of  the  people  to  form  a  constitution  for 
themselves.  The  difference  between  the  Buchan- 
an men  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Douglas  men 
and  the  Republicans  on  the  other,  has  not  been  on 
a  question  of  principle,  but  on  a  question  of  fact. 

The  dispute  was  upon  the  question  of  fact, 
whether  the  Lecompton  constitution  had  been 
fairly  formed  by  the  people  or  not.  Mr.  Buchan- 
an and  his  friends  have  not  contended  for  the 
contrary  principle  any  more  than  the  Douglas 
men  or  the  Republicans.  They  have  insisted  that 
whatever  of  small  irregularities  existed  in  getting 
up  the  Lecompton  constitution  were  such  as  hap- 
pen in  the  settlement  of  all  new  Territories.  The 
question  was,  was  it  a  fair  emanation  of  the 
people?  It  was  a  question  of  fact  and  not  of 
principle.  As  to  the  principle,  all  were  agreed. 
Judge  Douglas  voted  with  the  Republicans  upon 
that  matter  of  fact. 

He  and  they,  by  their  voices  and  votes,  denied 
that  it  was  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people.  The 
administration  affirmed  that  it  was.  With  re- 
spect to  the  evidence  bearing  upon  that  question 
of  fact,  I  readily  agree  that  Judge  Douglas  and  the 
Republicans  had  the  right  on  their  side,  and  that 
the  administration  was  wrong.    But  I  state  again 


8o  SPEECHES  [July  17 

that,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  there  is  no  dispute 
upon  the  right  of  a  people  in  a  Territory  merging 
into  a  State  to  form  a  constitution  for  themselves 
without  outside  interference  from  any  quarter. 
This  being  so,  what  is  Judge  Douglas  going  to 
spend  his  life  for?  Does  he  expect  to  stand  up  in 
majestic  dignity,  and  go  through  his  apotheosis 
and  become  a  god,  in  the  maintaining  of  a  prin- 
ciple which  neither  man  nor  mouse  in  all  God's 
creation  is  opposing?  Now  something  in  regard 
to  the  Lecompton  constitution  more  specially ;  for 
I  pass  from  this  other  question  of  popular  sov- 
ereignty as  the  most  arrant  humbug  that  has  ever 
been  attempted  on  an  intelligent  community. 

As  to  the  Lecompton  constitution,  I  have  al- 
ready said  that  on  the  question  of  fact  as  to 
whether  it  was  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people  or 
not.  Judge  Douglas  with  the  Republicans  and 
some  ''Americans"  had  greatly  the  argument 
against  the  administration ;  and  while  I  repeat 
this,  I  wish  to  know  what  there  is  in  the  opposi- 
tion of  Judge  Douglas  to  the  Lecompton  constitu- 
tion that  entitles  him  to  be  considered  the  only 
opponent  to  it — as  being  par  excellence  the  very 
quintessence  of  that  opposition.  I  agree  to  the 
rightfulness  of  his  opposition.  He  in  the  Senate, 
and  his  class  of  men  there,  formed  the  number 
three  and  no  more.  In  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives his  class  of  men — the  Anti-Lecompton  Dem- 
ocrats— formed  a  number  of  about  twenty.  It 
took  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  defeat  the  meas- 
ure against  one  hundred  and  twelve.  Of  the 
votes  of  that  one  hundred  and  twenty.  Judge 
Douglas's  friends  furnished  twenty,  to  add  to 
which  there  were  six  Americans  and  ninety-four 
Republicans.     I  do  not  say  that  I  am  precisely 


i858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  8i 

accurate  in  their  numbers,  but  I  am  sufficiently  so 
for  any  use  I  am  making  of  it. 

Why  is  it  that  twenty  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
credit  of  doing  that  work,  and  the  hundred  none 
of  it?  Why,  if,  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  the  honor 
is  to  be  divided  and  due  credit  is  to  be  given  to 
other  parties,  why  is  just  so  much  given  as  is 
consonant  with  the  wishes,  the  interests,  and  ad- 
vancement of  the  twenty  ?  My  understanding  is, 
when  a  common  job  is  done,  or  a  common  enter- 
prise prosecuted,  if  I  put  in  five  dollars  to  your 
one,  I  have  a  right  to  take  out  five  dollars  to  your 
one.  But  he  does  not  so  understand  it.  He  de- 
clares the  dividend  of  credit  for  defeating  Le- 
compton  upon  a  basis  which  seems  unprecedented 
and  incomprehensible. 

Let  us  see.  Lecompton  in  the  raw  was  de- 
feated. It  afterward  took  a  sort  of  cooked-up 
shape,  and  was  passed  in  the  English  bill.  It  is 
said  by  the  judge  that  the  defeat  was  a  good  and 
proper  thing.  If  it  was  a  good  thing,  why  is  he 
entitled  to  more  credit  than  others  for  the  per- 
formance of  that  good  act,  unless  there  was 
something  in  the  antecedents  of  the  Republicans 
that  might  induce  every  one  to  expect  them  to 
join  in  that  good  work,  and  at  the  same  time 
something  leading  them  to  doubt  that  he  would? 
Does  he  place  his  superior  claim  to  credit  on  the 
ground  that  he  performed  a  good  act  which  was 
never  expected  of  him  ?  He  says  I  have  a  prone- 
ness  for  quoting  scripture.  If  I  should  do  so 
now,  it  occurs  that  perhaps  he  places  himself 
somewhat  upon  the  ground  of  the  parable  of  the 
lost  sheep  which  went  astray  upon  the  mountains, 
and  when  the  owner  of  the  hundred  sheep  found 
the  one  that  was  lost,  and  threw  it  upon  his 


82  SPEECHES  [July  17 

shoulders,  and  came  home  rejoicing,  it  was  said 
that  there  was  more  rejoicing  over  the  one  sheep 
that  was  lost  and  had  been  found,  than  over  the 
ninety  and  nine  in  the  fold.  The  application  is 
made  by  the  Saviour  in  this  parable,  thus :  "Veri- 
ly, I  say  unto  you,  there  is  more  rejoicing  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  than  over 
ninety  and  nine  just  persons  that  need  no  repent- 
ance." 

And  now,  if  the  judge  claims  the  benefit  of  this 
parable,  let  him  repent.  Let  him  not  come  up 
here  and  say :  "I  am  the  only  just  person ;  and 
you  are  the  ninety-nine  sinners !"  Repentance 
before  forgiveness  is  a  provision  of  the  Christian 
system,  and  on  that  condition  alone  will  the  Re- 
publicans grant  him  forgiveness. 

How  will  he  prove  that  we  have  ever  occupied 
a  different  position  in  regard  to  the  Lecompton 
constitution  or  any  principle  in  it?  He  says  he 
did  not  make  his  opposition  on  the  ground  as  to 
whether  it  was  a  free  or  slave  constitution,  and 
he  would  have  you  understand  that  the  Republi- 
cans made  their  opposition  because  it  ultimately 
became  a  slave  constitution.  To  make  proof  in 
favor  of  himself  on  this  point,  he  reminds  us  that 
he  opposed  Lecompton  before  the  vote  was  taken 
declaring  whether  the  State  was  to  be  free  or 
slave.  But  he  forgets  to  say  that  our  Republican 
senator,  Trumbull,  made  a  speech  against  Le- 
compton even  before  he  did. 

Why  did  he  oppose  it  ?  Partly,  as  he  declares, 
because  the  members  of  the  convention  who 
framed  it  were  not  fairly  elected  by  the  people; 
that  the  people  were  not  allowed  to  vote  unless 
they  had  been  registered ;  and  that  the  people  of 
whole  counties,  in  some  instances,  were  not  regis- 


i858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  S^ 

tered.  For  these  reasons  he  declares  the  consti- 
tution was  not  an  emanation,  in  any  true  sense, 
from  the  people.  He  also  has  an  additional  ob- 
jection as  to  the  mode  of  submitting  the  constitu- 
tion back  to  the  people.  But  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  the  delegates  were  fairly  elected, 
a  speech  of  his,  made  something  more  than 
twelve  months  ago  from  this  stand,  becomes  im- 
portant. It  was  made  a  little  while  before  the 
election  of  the  delegates  who  made  Lecompton. 
In  that  speech  he  declared  there  was  every  reason 
to  hope  and  believe  the  election  would  be  fair,  and 
if  any  one  failed  to  vote  it  would  be  his  own  cul- 
pable fault. 

I,  a  few  days  after,  made  a  sort  of  answer  to 
that  speech.  In  that  answer  I  made  substantially 
the  very  argument  with  which  he  combated  his 
Lecompton  adversaries  in  the  Senate  last  winter. 
I  pointed  to  the  facts  that  the  people  could  not 
vote  without  being  registered,  and  that  the  time 
for  registering  had  gone  by.  I  commented  on  it 
as  wonderful  that  Judge  Douglas  could  be  igno- 
rant of  these  facts,  which  every  one  else  in  the 
nation  so  well  knew. 

I  now  pass  from  popular  sovereignty  and  Le- 
compton. I  may  have  occasion  to  refer  to  one 
or  both. 

When  he  was  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign, 
Napoleon-like,  in  New  York,  as  appears  by  two 
speeches  I  have  heard  him  deliver  since  his  ar- 
rival in  Illinois,  he  gave  special  attention  to  a 
speech  of  mine  delivered  here  on  the  i6th  of  June 
last.  He  says  that  he  carefully  read  that  speech. 
He  told  us  that  at  Chicago  a  week  ago  last  night, 
and  he  repeated  it  at  Bloomington  last  night. 
Doubtless  he  repeated  it  again  to-day,  though  I 


84  SPEECHES  [Jv.ly  17 

did  not  hear  him.  In  the  two  first  places — Chica- 
go and  Bloomington — I  heard  him;  to-day  I  did 
not.  He  said  he  had  carefully  examined  that 
speech ;  when,  he  did  not  say ;  but  there  is  no 
reasonable  doubt  it  was  when  he  was  in  New 
York  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign.  I  am  glad 
he  did  read  it  carefully.  He  says  it  was  evidently 
prepared  with  great  care.  I  freely  admit  it  was 
prepared  with  care.  I  claim  not  to  be  more  free 
from  errors  than  others — perhaps  scarcely  so 
much ;  but  I  was  very  careful  not  to  put  anything 
in  that  speech  as  a  matter  of  fact,  or  make  any 
inferences  which  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  true 
and  fully  warrantable.  If  I  had  made  any  mis- 
take I  was  willing  to  be  corrected ;  if  I  had  drawn 
any  inference  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  any 
one  else,  which  was  not  warranted,  I  was  fully 
prepared  to  modify  it  as  soon  as  discovered.  I 
planted  myself  upon  the  truth  and  the  truth  only, 
so  far  as  I  knew  it,  or  could  be  brought  to  know 
it. 

Having  made  that  speech  with  the  most  kindly 
feelings  toward  Judge  Douglas,  as  manifested 
therein,  I  was  gratified  when  I  found  that  he  had 
carefully  examined  it,  and  had  detected  no  error  of 
fact,  nor  any  inference  against  him,  nor  any  mis- 
representations, of  which  he  thought  fit  to  com- 
plain. In  neither  of  the  two  speeches  I  have  men- 
tioned, did  he  make  any  such  complaint.  I  will 
thank  any  one  who  will  inform  me  that  he,  in  his 
speech  to-day,  pointed  out  anything  I  had  stated, 
respecting  him,  as  being  erroneous.  I  presume 
there  is  no  such  thing.  I  have  reason  to  be  grati- 
fied that  the  care  and  caution  used  in  that  speech 
left  it  so  that  he,  most  of  all  others  interested  in 
discovering  error,  has  not  been  able  to  point  out 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  85 

one  thing  against  him  which  he  could  say  was 
wrong.  He  seizes  upon  the  doctrines  he  supposes 
to  be  included  in  that  speech,  and  declares  that 
upon  them  will  turn  the  issues  of  the  campaign. 
He  then  quotes,  or  attempts  to  quote,  from  my 
speech.  I  will  not  say  that  he  wilfully  misquotes, 
but  he  does  fail  to  quote  accurately.  His  attempt 
at  quoting  is  from  a  passage  which  I  believe  I 
can  quote  accurately  from  memory.  I  shall  make 
the  quotation  now,  with  some  comments  upon  it, 
as  I  have  already  said,  in  order  that  the  judge 
shall  be  left  entirely  without  excuse  for  misrep- 
resenting me.  I  do  so  now,  as  I  hope,  for  the  last 
time.  I  do  this  in  great  caution,  in  order  that  if 
he  repeats  his  misrepresentation,  it  shall  be  plain 
to  all  that  he  does  so  wilfully.  If,  after  all,  he 
still  persists,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  reconstruct 
the  course  I  have  marked  out  for  myself,  and 
draw  upon  such  humble  resources  as  I  have  for 
a  new  course,  better  suited  to  the  real  exigencies 
of  the  case.  I  set  out,  in  this  campaign,  with  the 
intention  of  conducting  it  strictly  as  a  gentleman, 
in  substance,  at  least,  if  not  in  the  outside  polish. 
The  latter  I  shall  never  be,  but  that  which  consti- 
tutes the  inside  of  a  gentleman  I  hope  I  under- 
stand, and  am  not  less  inclined  to  practise  than 
others.  It  was  my  purpose  and  expectation  that 
this  canvass  would  be  conducted  upon  principle, 
and  with  fairness  on  both  sides,  and  it  shall  not 
be  my  fault  if  this  purpose  and  expectation  shall 
be  given  up. 

He  charges,  in  substance,  that  I  invite  a  war  of 
sections ;  that  I  propose  all  local  institutions  of 
the  different  States  shall  become  consolidated  and 
uniform.  What  is  there  in  the  language  of  that 
speech  which  expresses  such  purpose  or  bears 


S6  SPEECHES  [July  17 

such  construction?  I  have  again  and  again  said 
that  I  would  not  enter  into  any  of  the  States  to 
disturb  the  institution  of  slavery.  Judge  Doug- 
las said,  at  Bloomington,  that  I  used  language 
most  able  and  ingenious  for  concealing  what  I 
really  meant ;  and  that  while  I  had  protested 
against  entering  into  the  slave  States,  I  never- 
theless did  mean  to  go  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio 
and  throw  missiles  into  Kentucky,  to  disturb 
them  in  their  domestic  institutions. 

I  said  in  that  speech,  and  I  meant  no  more,  that 
the  institution  of  slavery  ought  to  be  placed  in 
the  very  attitude  where  the  framers  of  this  gov- 
ernment placed  it  and  left  it.  I  do  not  understand 
that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  left  the 
people  in  the  free  States  in  the  attitude  of  firing 
bombs  or  shells  into  the  slave  States.  I  was  not 
using  that  passage  for  the  purpose  for  which  he 
infers  I  did  use  it.    I  said : 

We  are  now  far  advanced  into  the  fifth  year  since  a 
policy  was  created  for  the  avowed  object  and  with  the 
confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agita- 
tion. Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  that  agitation 
has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented. 
In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  till  a  crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed.  "A  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand."  I  believe  that  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  oppo- 
nents of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its 
advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as 
well  as  South. 

Now  you  all  see,  from  that  quotation,  I  did  not 
express  my  wish  on  anything.  In  that  passage  I 
indicated  no  wish  or  purpose  of  my  own ;  I  simply 


i858]  AT  SPRIXGFIELD  87 

expressed  my  expectation.  Cannot  the  judge 
perceive  a  distinction  between  a  purpose  and  an 
expectation?  I  have  often  expressed  an  ex- 
pectation to  die,  but  I  have  never  expressed 
a  wish  to  die.  I  said  at  Chicago,  and  now 
repeat,  that  I  am  quite  aware  this  gov- 
ernment has  endured  half  slave  and  half 
free  for  eighty-two  years.  I  understand  that 
little  bit  of  history.  I  expressed  the  opinion  I 
did,  because  I  perceived — or  thought  I  perceived 
— a  new  set  of  causes  introduced.  I  did  sav  at 
Chicago,  in  my  speech  there,  that  I  do  wish  to 
see  the  spread  of  slavery  arrested,  and  to  see  it 
placed  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  be- 
lief that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
I  said  that  because  I  supposed,  when  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  that  belief,  we  shall  have  peace 
on  the  slavery  question.  I  have  believed — and 
now  believe — the  public  mind  did  rest  in  that  be- 
lief up  to  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill. 

Although  I  have  ever  been  opposed  to  slavery, 
so  far  I  rested  in  the  hope  and  belief  that  it  was 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  For  that 
reason,  it  had  been  a  minor  question  with  me.  I 
might  have  been  mistaken ;  but  I  had  believed, 
and  now  believe,  that  the  whole  public  mind,  that 
is,  the  mind  of  the  great  majority,  had  rested  in 
that  belief  up  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. But  upon  that  event,  I  became  con- 
vinced that  either  I  had  been  resting  in  a  delusion, 
or  the  institution  was  being  placed  on  a  new 
basis — a  basis  for  making  it  perpetual,  national, 
and  universal.  Subsequent  events  have  greatly 
confirmed  me  in  that  belief.  I  believe  that  bill 
to  be  the  beginning  of  a  conspiracy  for  that  pur- 
pose.   So  believing,  I  have  since  then  considered 


88  SPEECHES  [July  17 

that  question  a  paramount  one.  So  believing,  I 
think  the  pubHc  mind  will  never  rest  till  the  power 
of  Congress  to  restrict  the  spread  of  it  shall  again 
be  acknowledged  and  exercised  on  the  one  hand, 
or,  on  the  other,  all  resistance  be  entirely  crushed 
out.  I  have  expressed  that  opinion,  and  I  enter- 
tain it  to-night.  It  is  denied  that  there  is  any 
tendency  to  the  nationalization  of  slavery  in  these 
StateSo 

Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  in  one  of  his 
speeches,  when  they  were  presenting  him  canes, 
silver  plate,  gold  pitchers,  and  the  like,  for  as- 
saulting Senator  Sumner,  distinctly  affirmed  his 
opinion  that  when  this  Constitution  was  formed, 
it  was  the  belief  of  no  man  that  slavery  would 
last  to  the  present  day. 

He  said,  what  I  think,  that  the  framers  of  our 
Constitution  placed  the  institution  of  slavery 
where  the  public  mind  rested  in  the  hope  that  it 
was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  But  he 
went  on  to  say  that  the  men  of  the  present  age, 
by  their  experience,  have  become  wiser  than  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution ;  and  the  invention  of 
the  cotton-gin  had  made  the  perpetuity  of  slavery 
a  necessity  in  this  country. 

As  another  piece  of  evidence  tending  to  this 
same  point.  Quite  recently  in  Virginia,  a  man — 
the  owner  of  slaves — made  a  will  providing  that 
after  his  death  certain  of  his  slaves  should  have 
their  freedom  if  they  should  so  choose,  and  go  to 
Liberia,  rather  than  remain  in  slavery.  They 
chose  to  be  liberated.  But  the  persons  to  whom 
they  would  descend  as  property  claimed  them  as 
slaves.  A  suit  was  instituted,  which  finally  came 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Virginia,  and  was  there- 
in decided  against  the  slaves,  upon  the  ground 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  89 

that  a  negro  cannot  make  a  choice — that  they  had 
no  legal  power  to  choose — could  not  perform  the 
condition  upon  which  their  freedom  depended. 

I  do  not  mention  this  with  any  purpose  of  criti- 
cising it,  but  to  connect  it  with  the  arguments  as 
affording  additional  evidence  of  the  change  of 
sentiment  upon  this  question  of  slavery  in  the 
direction  of  making  it  perpetual  and  national.  I 
argue  now  as  I  did  before,  that  there  is  such  a 
tendency,  and  I  am  backed  not  merely  by  the 
facts,  but  by  the  open  confession  in  the  slave 
States. 

And  now,  as  to  the  judge's  inference,  that  be- 
cause I  wish  to  see  slavery  placed  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction — placed  where  our  fathers 
originally  placed  it — I  wish  to  annihilate  the  State 
legislatures — to  force  cotton  to  grow  upon  the 
tops  of  the  Green  Mountains — to  freeze  ice  in 
Florida — to  cut  lumber  on  the  broad  Illinois 
prairies — that  I  am  in  favor  of  all  these  ridicu- 
lous and  impossible  things. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  complete  answer  to  all  this 
to  ask,  if,  when  Congress  did  have  the  fashion  of 
restricting  slavery  from  free  territory,  when 
courts  did  have  the  fashion  of  deciding  that  tak- 
ing a  slave  into  a  free  country  made  him  free — I 
say  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  ask,  if  any  of  this 
ridiculous  nonsense  about  consolidation  and  uni- 
formity did  actually  follow?  Who  heard  of  any 
such  thing,  because  of  the  ordinance  of  '87?  be- 
cause of  the  Missouri  Restriction  ?  because  of  the 
numerous  court  decisions  of  that  character? 

Now,  as  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision ;  for  upon 
that  he  makes  his  last  point  at  me.  He  boldly 
takes  ground  in  favor  of  that  decision.  This  is 
one  half  the  onslaught,  and  one  third  of  the  entire 


90  SPEECHES  [July  17 

plan  of  the  campaign.  I  am  opposed  to  that  de- 
cision in  a  certain  sense,  but  not  in  the  sense 
which  he  puts  on  it.  I  say  that  in  so  far  as  it 
decided  in  favor  of  Dred  Scott's  master,  and 
against  Dred  Scott  and  his  family,  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  disturb  or  resist  the  decision. 

I  never  have  proposed  to  do  any  such  thing.  I 
think  that  in  respect  for  judicial  authority,  my 
humble  history  would  not  suffer  in  comparison 
with  that  of  Judge  Douglas.  He  would  have 
the  citizen  conform  his  vote  to  that  decision ;  the 
member  of  Congress,  his ;  the  President,  his  use 
of  the  veto  power.  He  would  make  it  a  rule  of 
political  action  for  the  people  and  all  the  depart- 
ments of  the  government.  I  would  not.  By  re- 
sisting it  as  a  political  rule,  I  disturb  no  right  of 
property,  create  no  disorder,  excite  no  mobs. 

When  he  spoke  at  Chicago,  on  Friday  evening 
of  last  week,  he  made  this  same  point  upon  me. 
On  Saturday  evening  I  replied,  and  reminded 
him  of  a  Supreme  Court  decision  which  he  op- 
posed for  at  least  several  years.  Last  night,  at 
Bloomington,  he  took  some  notice  of  that  reply, 
but  entirely  forgot  to  remember  that  part  of  it. 

He  renews  his  onslaught  upon  me,  forgetting 
to  remember  that  I  have  turned  the  tables  against 
himself  on  that  very  point.  I  renew  the  effort  to 
draw  his  attention  to  it.  I  wish  to  stand  erect 
before  the  country,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  on 
this  question  of  judicial  authority,  and  therefore 
I  add  something  to  the  authority  in  favor  of  my 
own  position.  I  wish  to  show  that  I  am  sustained 
by  authority,  in  addition  to  that  heretofore  pre- 
sented. I  do  not  expect  to  convince  the  judge. 
It  is  part  of  the  plan  of  his  campaign,  and  he  will 
cling  to  it  with  a  desperate  grip.     Even  turn  it 


i858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  91 

upon  him — the  sharp  point  against  him,  and  gaff 
him  through — he  will  still  cling  to  it  till  he  can 
invent  some  new  dodge  to  take  the  place  of  it. 

In  public  speaking  it  is  tedious  reading  from 
documents,  but  I  must  beg  to  indulge  the  practice 
to  a  limited  extent.  I  shall  read  from  a  letter 
written  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1820,  and  now  to  be 
found  in  the  seventh  volume  of  his  correspond- 
ence, at  page  177.  It  seems  he  had  been  pre- 
sented by  a  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Jarvis  with 
a  book,  or  essay,  or  periodical,  called  the  "Repub- 
lican," and  he  was  writing  in  acknowledgment  of 
the  present,  and  noting  some  of  its  contents. 
After  expressing  the  hope  that  the  work  will  pro- 
duce a  favorable  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the 
young,  he  proceeds  to  say : 

That  it  will  have  this  tendency  may  be  expected,  and 
for  that  reason  I  feel  an  urgency  to  note  what  I  deem 
an  error  in  it,  the  more  requiring  notice  as  your  opinion 
is  strengthened  by  that  of  many  others.  You  seem,  in 
pages  84  and  148,  to  consider  the  judges  as  the  ultimate 
arbiters  of  all  constitutional  questions — a  very  dan- 
gerous doctrine  indeed,  and  one  which  would  place  us 
under  the  despotism  of  an  oligarchy.  Our  judges  are 
as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so.  They  have, 
with  others,  the  same  passions  for  party,  for  power, 
and  the  privilege  of  their  corps.  Their  maxim  is, 
"Boni  judicis  est  ampliare  jurisdictionem" ;  and  their 
power  is  the  more  dangerous  as  they  are  in  office  for 
life,  and  not  responsible,  as  the  other  functionaries  are, 
to  the  elective  control.  The  Constitution  has  erected 
no  such  single  tribunal,  knowing  that,  to  whatever 
hands  confided,  with  the  corruptions  of  time  and  party, 
its  members  would  become  despots.  It  has  more  wisely 
made  all  the  departments  co-equal  and  co-sovereign 
within  themselves. 

Thus  we  see  the  power  claimed  for  the  Su- 
preme Court  by  Judge' Douglas,  Mv.  Jefferson 


92  SPEECHES  rjuly  17 

holds,  would  reduce  us  to  the  despotism  of  an 
oligarchy. 

Now,  I  have  said  no  more  than  this — in  fact, 
never  quite  so  much  as  this — at  least  I  am  sus- 
tained by  Mr.  Jefferson. 

Let  us  go  a  little  further.  You  remember  we 
once  had  a  national  bank.  Some  one  owed  the 
bank  a  debt;  he  was  sued  and  sought  to  avoid 
payment,  on  the  ground  that  the  bank  was  un- 
constitutional. The  case  went  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  therein  it  was  decided  that  the  bank 
was  constitutional.  The  whole  Democratic  party 
revolted  against  that  decision.  General  Jackson 
himself  asserted  that  he,  as  President,  would  not 
be  bound  to  hold  a  national  bank  to  be  constitu- 
tional, even  though  the  court  had  decided  it  to  be 
so.  He  fell  in  precisely  with  the  view  of  Mr. 
Jefferson,  and  acted  upon  it  under  his  official 
oath,  in  vetoing  a  charter  for  a  national  bank. 
The  declaration  that  Congress  does  not  possess 
this  constitutional  power  to  charter  a  bank,  has 
gone  into  the  Demiocratic  platform,  at  their  na- 
tional conventions,  and  was  brought  forward  and 
reaffirmed  in  their  last  convention  at  Cincinnati. 
They  have  contended  for  that  declaration,  in  the 
very  teeth  of  the  Supreme  Court,  for  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  In  fact,  they  have  reduced 
the  decision  to  an  absolute  nullity.  That  decision, 
I  repeat,  is  repudiated  in  the  Cincinnati  platform ; 
and  still,  as  if  to  show  that  effrontery  can  go  no 
farther,  Judge  Douglas  vaunts,  in  the  very 
speeches  in  which  he  denounces  me  for  opposing 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  he  stands  on  the 
Cincinnati  platform. 

Now,  I  wish  to  know  what  the  judge  can 
charge  upon  me,  with  respect  to  decisions  of  the 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  93 

Supreme  Court,  which  does  not  lie  in  all  its 
length,  breadth,  and  proportions  at  his  own  door. 
The  plain  truth  is  simply  this :  Judge  Douglas  is 
for  Supreme  Court  decisions  when  he  likes,  and 
against  them  when  he  does  not  like  them.  He  is 
for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  tends  to 
nationalize  slavery — because  it  is  part  of  the  orig- 
inal combination  for  that  object.  It  so  happens, 
singularly  enough,  that  I  never  stood  opposed  to 
a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  till  this.  On  the 
contrary,  I  have  no  recollection  that  he  was  ever 
particularly  in  favor  of  one  till  this.  He  never 
was  in  favor  of  any,  nor  opposed  to  any,  till  the 
present  one,  which  helps  to  nationalize  slavery. 

Free  men  of  Sangamon,  free  men  of  Illinois, 
free  men  everywhere,  judge  ye  between  him  and 
me  upon  this  issue. 

He  says  this  Dred  Scott  case  is  a  very  small 
matter  at  most ;  that  it  has  no  practical  effect ; 
that  at  best,  or  rather,  I  suppose,  at  worst,  it  is 
but  an  abstraction.  I  submit  that  the  proposition, 
that  the  thing  which  determines  whether  a  man 
is  free  or  a  slave,  is  rather  concrete  than  abstract. 
I  think  you  would  conclude  that  it  was  if  your 
liberty  depended  upon  it,  and  so  would  Judge 
Douglas  if  his  liberty  depended  upon  it.  But 
suppose  it  was  on  the  question  of  spreading  slav- 
ery over  the  new  Territories  that  he  considers 
it  as  being  merely  an  abstract  matter,  and  one  of 
no  practical  importance.  How  has  the  planting 
of  slavery  in  new  countries  always  been  effected? 
It  has  now  been  decided  that  slavery  cannot  be 
kept  out  of  our  new  Territories  by  any  legal 
means.  In  what  do  our  new  Territories  now  dif- 
fer in  this  respect  from  the  old  colonies  when 
slavery  was  first  planted  within  them?     It  was 


94  SPEECHES  [July  17 

planted  as  Mr.  Clay  once  declared,  and  as  history 
proves  true,  by  individual  men  in  spite  of  the 
wishes  of  the  people ;  the  mother  government 
refusing  to  prohibit  it,  and  withholding  from 
the  people  of  the  colonies  the  authority  to  pro- 
hibit it  for  themselves.  Mr.  Clay  says  this  was 
one  of  the  great  and  just  causes  of  complaint 
against  Great  Britain  by  the  colonies,  and  the  best 
apology  we  can  now  make  for  having  the  institu- 
tion amongst  us.  In  that  precise  condition  our 
Nebraska  politicians  have  at  last  succeeded  in 
placing  our  own  new  Territories ;  the  govern- 
ment will  not  prohibit  slavery  within  them,  nor 
allow  the  people  to  prohibit  it. 

I  defy  any  man  to  find  any  difference  between 
the  policy  which  originally  planted  slavery  in 
these  colonies  and  that  policy  which  nov/  prevails 
in  our  new  Territories.  If  it  does  not  go  into 
them,  it  is  only  because  no  individual  wishes  it  to 
go.  The  judge  indulged  himself  doubtless,  to- 
day, with  the  question  as  to  what  I  am  going  to 
do  with  or  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Well, 
judge,  will  you  please  tell  me  what  you  did  about 
the  bank  decision  ?  Will  you  not  graciously  allow 
us  to  do  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  precisely 
as  you  did  with  the  bank  decision?  You  suc- 
ceeded in  breaking  down  the  moral  effect  of  that 
decision ;  did  you  find  it  necessary  to  amend  the 
Constitution?  or  to  set  up  a  court  of  negroes  in 
order  to  do  it? 

There  is  one  other  point.  Judge  Douglas  has  a 
very  affectionate  leaning  toward  the  Americans 
and  Old  Whigs.  Last  evening,  in  a  sort  of  weep- 
ing tone,  he  described  to  us  a  death-bed  scene. 
He  had  been  called  to  the  side  of  Mr.  Clay,  in 
his   last  moments,  in  order  that  the   genius   of 


i858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  95 

''popular  sovereignty"  might  duly  descend  from 
the  dying  man  and  settle  upon  him,  the  living  and 
most  worthy  successor.  He  could  do  no  less  than 
promise  that  he  would  devote  the  remainder  of 
his  life  to  "popular  sovereignty" ;  and  then  the 
great  statesman  departs  in  peace.  By  this  part  of 
the  ''plan  of  the  campaign,"  the  judge  has  evi- 
dently promised  himself  that  tears  shall  be  drawn 
down  the  cheeks  of  all  Old  Whigs,  as  large  as 
half-grown  apples. 

Mr.  Webster,  too,  was  mentioned;  but  it  did 
not  quite  come  to  a  death-bed  scene,  as  to  him. 
It  would  be  amusing,  if  it  were  not  disgusting, 
to  see  how  quick  these  compromise-breakers  ad- 
minister on  the  political  effects  of  their  dead  ad- 
versaries, trumping  up  claims  never  before  heard 
of,  and  dividing  the  assets  among  themselves.  If 
I  should  be  found  dead  to-morrow  morning, 
nothing  but  my  insignificance  could  prevent  a. 
speech  being  made  on  my  authority,  before  the 
end  of  next  week.  It  so  happens  that  in  that 
"popular  sovereignty"  with  which  Mr.  Clay  was 
identified,  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  ex- 
pressly reserved ;  and  it  was  a  little  singular  if 
Mr.  Clay  cast  his  mantle  upon  Judge  Douglas  on 
purpose  to  have  that  compromise  repealed. 

Again,  the  judge  did  not  keep  faith  with  Mr. 
Clay  when  he  first  brought  in  his  Nebraska  bill. 
He  left  the  Missouri  Compromise  unrepealed, 
and  in  his  report  accompanying  the  bill,  he  told 
the  world  he  did  it  on  purpose.  The  manes  of 
Mr.  Clay  must  have  been  in  great  agony,  till 
thirty  days  later,  when  "popular  sovereignty" 
stood  forth  in  all  its  glory. 

One  more  thing.  Last  night  Judge  Douglas 
tormented  himself  with  horrors  about  my  disposi- 


g6  SPEECHES  [July  17 

tion  to  make  negroes  perfectly  equal  with  white 
men  in  social  and  political  relations.  He  did  not 
stop  to  show  that  I  have  said  any  such  thing,  or 
that  it  legitimately  follows  from  anything  I  have 
said,  but  he  rushes  on  with  his  assertions.  I  ad- 
here to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  are  not  willing  to 
stand  by  it,  let  them  come  up  and  amend  it.  Let 
them  make  it  read  that  all  men  are  created  equal, 
except  negroes.  Let  us  have  it  decided  whether 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  this  blessed 
year  of  1858,  shall  be  thus  amended.  In  his  con- 
struction of  the  Declaration  last  year,  he  said  it 
only  meant  that  Americans  in  America  were 
equal  to  Englishmen  in  England.  Then,  when  I 
pointed  out  to  him  that  by  that  rule  he  excludes 
the  Germans,  the  Irish,  the  Portuguese,  and  all 
the  other  people  who  have  come  amongst  us  since 
the  Revolution,  he  reconstructs  his  construction. 
In  his  last  speech  he  tells  us  it  meant  Europeans. 

I  press  him  a  little  further,  and  ask  if  it  meant 
to  include  the  Russians  in  Asia?  or  does  he  mean 
to  exclude  that  vast  population  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  Declaration  of  Independence?  I 
expect  ere  long  he  will  introduce  another  amend- 
ment to  his  definition.  He  is  not  at  all  particular. 
He  is  satisfied  with  anything  which  does  not  en- 
danger the  nationalizing  of  negro  slavery.  It 
may  draw  white  men  down,  but  it  must  not  lift 
negroes  up.  Who  shall  say,  ''I  am  the  superior, 
and  you  are  the  inferior"  ? 

My  declarations  upon  this  subject  of  negro 
slavery  may  be  misrepresented,  but  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  I  have  said  that  I  do  not  under- 
stand the  Declaration  to  mean  that  all  men  were 
created  equal  in  all  respects.     They  are  not  our 


1858]  AT  SPRINGFIELD  97 

equal  in  color ;  but  I  suppose  that  It  does  mean 
to  declare  that  all  men  are  equal  in  some  re- 
spects ;  they  are  equal  in  their  right  to  "life,  lib- 
erty, and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Certainly 
the  negro  is  not  our  equal  in  color — perhaps  not 
in  many  other  respects ;  still,  in  the  right  to  put 
into  his  mouth  the  bread  that  his  own  hands  have 
earned,  he  is  the  equal  of  every  other  man,  white 
or  black.  In  pointing  out  that  more  has  been 
given  you,  you  cannot  be  justified  in  taking  away 
the  little  which  has  been  given  him.  All  I  ask  for 
the  negro  is  that  if  you  do  not  like  him,  let  him 
alone.  If  God  gave  him  but  little,  that  little  let 
him  enjoy. 

When  our  government  was  established,  we  had 
the  institution  of  slavery  among  us.  We  were  in 
a  certain  sense  compelled  to  tolerate  its  existence. 
It  was  a  sort  of  necessity.  We  had  gone  through 
our  struggle,  and  secured  our  own  independence. 
The  framers  of  the  Constitution  found  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  amongst  their  other  institutions 
at  the  time.  They  found  that  by  an  effort  to 
eradicate  it,  they  might  lose  much  of  what  they 
had  already  gained.  They  were  obliged  to  bow 
to  the  necessity.  They  gave  power  to  Congress 
to  abolish  the  slave-trade  at  the  end  of  twenty 
years.  They  also  prohibited  slavery  in  the  Terri- 
tories where  it  did  not  exist.  They  did  what 
they  could  and  yielded  to  necessity  for  the  rest. 
I  also  yield  to  all  which  follows  from  that  neces- 
sity. What  I  would  most  desire  would  be  the 
separation  of  the  white  and  black  races. 

One  more  point  on  this  Springfield  speech 
which  Judge  Douglas  says  he  has  read  so  care- 
fully. I  expressed  my  belief  in  the  existence  of 
a  conspiracy  to  perpetuate  and  nationalize  slav- 


98  SPEECHES 

ery.  I  did  not  profess  to  know  it,  nor  do  I  now. 
I  showed  the  part  Judge  Douglas  had  played  in 
the  string  of  facts,  constituting  to  my  mind  the 
proof  of  that  conspiracy.  I  showed  the  parts 
played  by  others. 

I  charged  that  the  people  had  been  deceived 
into  carrying  the  last  presidential  election,  by  the 
impression  that  the  people  of  the  Territories 
might  exclude  slavery  if  they  chose,  when  it  was 
known  in  advance  by  the  conspirators,  that  the 
court  was  to  decide  that  neither  Congress  nor  the 
people  could  so  exclude  slavery.  These  charges 
are  more  distinctly  made  than  anything  else  in 
the  speech. 

Judge  Douglas  has  carefully  read  and  re-read 
that  speech.  He  has  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  con- 
tradicted those  charges.  In  the  two  speeches 
which  I  heard  he  certainly  did  not.  On  his  own 
tacit  admission  I  renew  that  charge.  I  charge 
him  with  having  been  a  party  to  that  conspiracy, 
and  to  that  deception,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
nationalizing  slavery. 


The   Joint   Debate  with   Douglas 

Together  with   Correspondence  in  Re- 
gard TO  THE  Debate,  and  Interven- 
ing   Speeches   (July  24  to  Oc- 

TOBER    15,    1858) 
With  an  Introduction  by  Horace  White 


THE  JOINT  DEBATE 
WITH  DOUGLAS 

Introduction. 

By  Horace  White. 

The  following  account  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  debate  with 
Senator  Douglas  is  condensed  from  a  chapter  in  Hern- 
don  and  Weik's  ''Life  of  Lincoln"  written  in  February, 
1890,  by  Horace  White,  now  of  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  who  accompanied  Mr.  Lincoln  as  the  reporter 
of  the  debate  for  the  Chicago  Tribune.  It  is  presented 
here  by  the  kind  permission  of  the  publishers  of  the 
"Life,"  D.  Appleton  and  Company,  of  New  York. 

All  of  the  seven  joint  debates  were  reported 
by  Mr.  Hitt*  for  the  Tribune,  the  manuscript 
passing  through  my  hands  before  going  to  the 
printers.  .  .  . 

The  volume  containing  the  debates,  published 
in  i860  by  Follett,  Foster  &  Co.,  of  Columbus, 
Ohio,  presents  Mr.  Lincoln's  speeches  as  they 
appeared  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  Mr.  Doug- 
las's as  they  appeared  in  the  Chicago  Times.  .  .  . 

The  next  stage  brought  us  to  Ottawa,  the  first 
joint  debate,  August  21.  Here  the  crowd  was 
enormous.  The  weather  had  been  very  dry  and 
the  town  was  shrouded  in  dust  raised  by  the  mov- 
ing populace.     Crowds  were  pouring  into  town, 

*  Mr.  Robert  R.  Hitt,  subsequently  Assistant  Secretary 
of  State,  and,  after  this,  Congressman  from  the  6th  District 
of  Illinois. 

lOI 


102  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

from  sunrise  till  noon  in  all  sorts  of  conveyances, 
teams,  railroad  trains,  canal  boats,  cavalcades,  and 
processions  on   foot,   with   banners  and   inscrip- 
tions, stirring  up  such  clouds  of  dust  that  it  was 
hard  to  make  out  what  was  underneath  them. 
The  town  was  covered  with  bunting,  and  bands 
of    music    were    tooting    around    every    corner, 
drowned  now  and  then  by  the  roar  of  cannon. 
Mr.  Lincoln  came  by  railroad  and  Mr.  Douglas 
by  carriage  from  La  Salle.    A  train  of  seventeen 
passenger  cars  from  Chicago  attested  the  interest 
felt  in  that  city  in  the  first  meeting  of  the  cham- 
pions.    Two  great  processions  escorted  them  to 
the  platform  in  the  public  square.    But  the  eager- 
ness to  hear  the  speaking  was  so  great  that  the 
crowd  had  taken  possession  of  the  square  and  the 
platform,  and  had  climbed  on  the  wooden  awning 
overhead,  to  such  an  extent  that  the  speakers  and 
the  committees  and  the  reporters  could  not  get  to 
their  places.     Half  an  hour  was  consumed  in  a 
rough-and-tumble    skirmish    to    make    way    for 
them,  and,  when  finally  this  was  accomplished,  a 
section  of  the  awning  gave  way  with  its  load  of 
men  and  boys,  and  came  down  on  the  heads  of 
the  Douglas  committee  of  reception.    But,  fortu- 
nately, nobody  was  hurt. 

Here  I  was  joined  by  Mr.  Hitt  and  also  by  Mr. 
Chester  P.  Dewey  of  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  who  remained  with  us  until  the  end  of  the 
campaign.  Hither,  also,  came  quite  an  army  of 
young  newspaper  men,  among  whom  was  Henry 
Villard,  in  behalf  of  Forney's  Philadelphia  Press. 
I  have  preserved  Mr.  Dewey's  sketch  of  the  two 
orators  as  they  appeared  on  the  Ottawa  platform, 
and  I  introduce  it  here  as  a  graphic  description 
by  a  new  hand: 


INTRODUCTION  103 

"Two  men  presenting  wider  contrasts  could 
hardly  be  found,  as  the  representatives  of  the  two 
great  parties.  Everybody  knows  Douglas,  a 
short,  thick-set,  burly  man,  with  large,  round 
head,  heavy  hair,  dark  complexion,  and  fierce 
bulldog  look.  Strong  in  his  own  real  power,  and 
skilled  by  a  thousand  conflicts  in  all  the  strategy 
of  a  hand-to-hand  or  a  general  fight ;  of  tower- 
ing ambition,  restless  in  his  determined  desire  for 
notoriety,  proud,  defiant,  arrogant,  audacious,  un- 
scrupulous, 'Little  Dug'  ascended  the  platform 
and  looked  out  impudently  and  carelessly  on  the 
immense  throng  which  surged  and  struggled  be- 
fore him.  A  native  of  Vermont,  reared  on  a  soil 
where  no  slave  stood,  he  came  to  Illinois  a 
teacher,  and  from  one  post  to  another  had  risen 
to  his  present  eminence.  Forgetful  of  the  ances- 
tral hatred  of  slavery  to  which  he  was  the  heir, 
he  had  come  ...  to  owe  much  of  his  fame  to 
continued  subservience  to  Southern  influence. 

''The  other — Lincoln — is  a  native  of  Kentucky, 
of  poor  white  parentage,  and,  from  his  cradle, 
has  felt  the  blighting  influence  of  the  dark  and 
cruel  shadow  which  rendered  labor  dishonorable 
and  kept  the  poor  in  poverty,  while  it  advanced 
the  rich  in  their  possessions.  Reared  in  poverty, 
and  to  the  humblest  aspirations,  he  left  his  native 
State,  crossed  the  line  into  Illinois,  and  began  his 
career  of  honorable  toil.  At  first  a  laborer,  split- 
ting rails  for  a  living — deficient  in  education,  and 
applying  himself  even  to  the  rudiments  of  knowl- 
edge— he,  too,  felt  the  expanding  power  of  his 
American  manhood,  and  began  to  achieve  the 
greatness  to  which  he  has  succeeded.  With  great 
difficulty,  struggling  through  the  tedious  formu- 
laries of  legal  lore,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar. 


104  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

and  rapidly  made  his  way  to  the  front  ranks  of  his 
profession.  Honored  by  the  people  with  office, 
he  is  still  the  same  honest  and  reliable  man.  He 
volunteers  in  the  Black  Hawk  war,  and  does  the 
State  good  service  in  its  sorest  need.  In  every 
relation  of  life,  socially  and  to  the  State,  Mr.  Lin- 
coln has  been  always  the  pure  and  honest  man. 
In  physique  he  is  the  opposite  to  Douglas.  Built 
on  the  Kentucky  type,  he  is  very  tall,  slender,  and 
angular,  awkward  even  in  gait  and  attitude.  His 
face  is  sharp,  large-featured,  and  unprepossessing. 
His  eyes  are  deep-set  under  heavy  brows,  his  fore- 
head is  high  and  retreating,  and  his  hair  is  dark 
and  heavy.  In  repose,  I  must  confess  that  'Long 
Abe's'  appearance  is  not  comely.  But  stir  him  up 
and  the  fire  of  his  genius  plays  on  every  feature. 
His  eye  glows  and  sparkles ;  every  lineament,  now 
so  ill-formed,  grows  brilliant  and  expressive,  and 
you  have  before  you  a  man  of  rare  power  and  of 
strong  magnetic  influence.  He  takes  the  people 
every  time,  and  there  is  no  getting  away  from 
his  sturdy  good  sense,  his  unaffected  sincerity, 
and  the  unceasing  play  of  his  good  humor,  which 
accompanies  his  close  logic  and  smoothes  the  way 
to  conviction.  Listening  to  him  on  Saturday, 
calmly  and  unprejudiced,  I  v/as  convinced  that 
he  had  no  superior  as  a  stump-speaker.  He  is 
clear,  concise,  and  logical,  his  language  is  elo- 
quent and  at  perfect  command.  He  is  altogether 
a  more  fluent  speaker  than  Douglas,  and  in  all  the 
arts  of  debate  fully  his  equal.  The  Republicans 
of  Illinois  have  chosen  a  champion  worthy  of 
their  heartiest  support,  and  fully  equipped  for  the 
conflict  with  the  great  Squatter  Sovereign." 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  Ottawa  debate,  a  cir- 
cumstance occurred  which,  Mr.  Lincoln  said  to 


INTRODUCTION  105 

me  afterwards,  was  extremely  mortifying  to  him. 
Half  a  dozen  Republicans,  roused  to  a  high  pitch 
of  enthusiasm  for  their  leader,  seized  him  as  he 
came  down  from  the  platform,  hoisted  him  upon 
their  shoulders  and  marched  off  with  him,  singing 
the  ''Star-Spangled  Banner,"  or  "Hail,  Colum- 
bia," until  they  reached  the  place  where  he  was  to 
spend  the  night.  What  use  Douglas  made  of  this 
incident,  is  known  to  the  readers  of  the  joint  de- 
bates. He  said  a  few  days  later,  at  Joliet,  that 
Lincoln  was  so  used  up  in  the  discussion  that  his 
knees  trembled,  and  he  had  to  be  carried  from 
the  platform,  and  he  caused  this  to  be  printed  in 
the  newspapers  of  his  own  party.  Mr.  Lincoln 
called  him  to  account  for  this  fable  at  Jonesboro. 

The  Ottawa  debate  gave  great  satisfaction  to 
our  side.  Mr.  Lincoln,  we  thought,  had  the  bet- 
ter of  the  argument,  and  we  all  came  away  en- 
couraged. But  the  Douglas  men  were  encour- 
aged also.  In  his  concluding  half  hour,  Douglas 
spoke  with  great  rapidity  and  animation,  and  yet 
with  perfect  distinctness,  and  his  supporters 
cheered  him  wildly. 

The  next  joint  debate  was  to  take  place  at  Free- 
port,  six  days  later.  In  the  interval,  Mr.  Lincoln 
addressed  meetings  at  Henry,  Marshall  County; 
Augusta,  Hancock  County,  and  Macomb,  Mc- 
Donough  County.  During  this  interval  he  pre- 
pared the  answers  to  the  seven  questions  put  to 
him  by  Douglas  at  Ottawa,  and  wrote  the  four 
questions  which  he  propounded  to  Douglas  at 
Freeport.  The  second  of  these,  viz. :  ''Can  the 
people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  law- 
ful way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution?" 


io6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

was  made  the  subject  of  a  conference  between  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  a  number  of  his  friends  from  Chi- 
cago, among  whom  were  Norman  B.  Judd  and 
Dr.  C.  H.  Ray,  the  latter  the  chief  editor  of  the 
Tribune.  This  conference  took  place  at  the  town 
of  Dixon.  I  was  not  present,  but  Dr.  Ray 
told  me  that  all  who  were  there  counseled  Mr. 
Lincoln  not  to  put  that  question  to  Douglas,  be- 
cause he  would  answer  it  in  the  affirmative  and 
thus  probably  secure  his  re-election.  It  was  their 
opinion  that  Lincoln  should  argue  strongly  from 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  Douglas  in- 
dorsed, that  the  people  of  the  Territories  could 
not  lawfully  exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  forma- 
tion of  a  State  Constitution,  but  that  he  should 
not  force  Douglas  to  say  yes  or  no.  They  be- 
lieved that  the  latter  would  let  that  subject  alone 
as  much  as  possible  in  order  not  to  offend  the 
South,  unless  he  should  be  driven  into  a  corner. 
Mr.  Lincoln  replied  that  to  draw  an  affirmative 
answer  from  Douglas  on  this  question  was  ex- 
actly what  he  wanted,  and  that  his  object  was  to 
make  it  impossible  for  Douglas  to  get  the  vote  of 
the  Southern  States  in  the  next  Presidential  elec- 
tion. He  considered  that  fight  much  more  im- 
portant than  the  present  one,  and  he  would  be 
willing  to  lose  this  in  order  to  win  that. 

The  result  justified  Mr.  Lincoln's  prevision. 
Douglas  did  answer  in  the  affirmative.  If  he  had 
answered  in  the  negative  he  would  have  lost  the 
Senatorial  election,  and  that  would  have  ended  his 
political  career.  He  took  the  chance  of  being 
able  to  make  satisfactory  explanations  to  the 
slaveholders,  but  they  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  him  afterwards. 

The  crowd  that  assembled  at  Freeport  on  the 


INTRODUCTION  107 

27th  of  August  was  even  larger  than  that  at  Ot- 
tawa. Hundreds  of  people  came  from  Chicago  and 
many  from  the  neighboring  State  of  Wisconsin. 
Douglas  came  from  Galena  the  night  before  the 
debate,  and  was  greeted  with  a  great  torchlight 
procession.  Lincoln  came  the  following  morning 
from  Dixon,  and  was  received  at  the  railway  sta- 
tion by  a  dense  crowd,  filling  up  all  the  adjacent 
streets,  who  shouted  themselves  hoarse  when  his 
tall  form  was  seen  emerging  from  the  train. 
Here,  again,  the  people  had  seized  upon  the  plat- 
form, and  all  the  approaches  to  it,  an  hour  before 
the  speaking  began,  and  a  hand-to-hand  fight  took 
place  to  secure  possession. 

After  the  debate  was  finished,  we  Republicans 
did  not  feel  very  happy.  We  held  the  same 
opinion  that  Mr.  Judd  and  Dr.  Ray  had — that 
Douglas's  answer  had  probably  saved  him  from 
defeat.  We  did  not  look  forward,  and  we  did  not 
look  South,  and  even  if  we  had  done  so,  we  were 
too  much  enlisted  in  this  campaign  to  swap  it  for 
another  one  which  was  two  years  distant.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  wisdom  was  soon  vindicated  by  his 
antagonist,  one  of  whose  earliest  acts,  after  he 
returned  to  Washington  City,  was  to  make  a 
speech  (February  23,  1859)  defending  himself 
against  attacks  upon  the  ''Freeport  heresy,"  as 
the  Southerners  called  it.  In  that  debate  Jeffer- 
son Davis  was  particularly  aggravating,  and 
Douglas  did  not  reply  to  him  with  his  usual  spirit. 

It  would  draw  this  chapter  out  to  unreasonable 
length,  if  I  were  to  give  details  of  all  the  small 
meetings  of  this  campaign.  After  the  Freeport 
joint  debate,  we  went  to  Carlinville,  Macoupin 
County,  where  John  M.  Palmer  divided  the  time 
with  Mr.  Lincoln.     From  this  place  we  went  to 


io8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

Clinton,  De  Witt  County,  via  Springfield  and 
Decatur.  .  .  . 

Our  course  took  us  next  to  Bloomington,  Mc- 
Lean County;  Monticello,  Piatt  County,  and 
Paris,  Edgar  County.  At  the  last-mentioned 
place  (September  8)  we  were  joined  by  Owen 
Love  joy,  who  had  never  been  in  that  part  of  the 
State  before.  The  fame  of  Lovejoy  as  an  Aboli- 
tionist had  preceded  him,  however,  and  the  people 
gathered  around  him  in  a  curious  and  hesitating 
way,  as  though  he  were  a  witch  who  might  sud- 
denly give  them  lockjaw  or  bring  murrain  on 
their  cattle,  if  he  were  much  provoked.  Love- 
joy  saw  this  and  was  greatly  amused  by  it,  and 
when  he  made  a  speech  in  the  evening,  Mr.  Lin- 
coln having  made  his  in  the  daytime,  he  invited 
the  timid  ones  to  come  up  and  feel  of  his  horns 
and  examine  his  cloven  foot  and  his  forked  tail. 
Lovejoy  was  one  of  the  most  effective  orators 
of  his  time.  After  putting  his  audience  in  good 
humor  in  this  way,  he  made  one  of  his  impas- 
sioned speeches  which  never  failed  to  gain  votes 
where  human  hearts  were  responsive  to  the 
wrongs  of  slavery.  Edgar  County  was  in  the 
Democratic  list,  but  this  year  it  gave  a  Repub- 
lican majority  on  the  legislative  and  congressional 
tickets,  and  I  think  Lovejoy 's  speech  was  largely 
accountable  for  the  result.  .  .  . 

The  next  meetings  in  their  order  were  Hills- 
boro,  Montgomery  County ;  Greenville,  Bond 
County,  and  Edwardsville,  Madison  County.  .  .  . 

From  Edwardsville  we  went  to  the  Jonesboro 
joint  debate.  The  audience  here  was  small,  not 
more  than  i,ooo  or  1,500,  and  nearly  all  Demo- 
crats. This  was  in  the  heart  of  Egypt.  The 
country  people  came  into  the  little  town  with  ox 


INTRODUCTION  109 

teams  mostly,  and  a  very  stunted  breed  of  oxen, 
too.  Their  wagons  were  old-fashioned,  and 
looked  as  though  they  were  ready  to  fall  in  pieces. 
A  train  with  three  or  four  carloads  of  Douglas 
men  came  up,  with  Douglas  himself,  from  Cairo. 
All  who  were  present  listened  to  the  debate  with 
very  close  attention,  and  there  was  scarcely  any 
cheering  on  either  side.  Of  course,  we  did  not 
expect  any  in  that  place.  The  reason  why  Doug- 
\as  did  not  get  much,  was  that  Union  County  was 
a  stronghold  of  the  "Danites,"  or  Buchanan 
Democrats.*  .  .  . 

From  Jonesboro  we  went  to  Centralia,  where  a 
great  State  Fair  was  sprawling  over  the  prairie, 
but  there  was  no  speaking  there.  It  was  not  good 
form  to  have  political  bouts  at  State  Fairs,  and 
I  believe  that  the  managers  had  prohibited  them. 
After  one  day  at  this  place,  where  great  crowds 
clustered  around  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  when- 
ever they  appeared  on  the  grounds,  we  went  to 
Charleston,  Coles  County,  September  18,  where 
the  fourth  joint  debate  took  place. 

This  was  a  very  remarkable  gathering,  the  like 
of  which  we  had  not  seen  elsewhere.  It  con- 
sisted of  a  great  outpouring  (or  rather  inpour- 
ing)  of  the  rural  population,  in  their  own  con- 
veyances. There  was  only  one  line  of  railroad 
here,  and  only  one  special  train  on  it.  Yet,  to  my 
eye,  the  crowd  seemed  larger  than  at  either  Ot- 
tawa or  Freeport,  in  fact  the  largest  of  the  series, 
except  the  one  at  Galesburg,  which  came  later. 
The  campaign  was  now  at  its  height,  the  previous 
debates  having  stirred  the  people  into  a  fever. 

*  As  the  reader  of  the  Debate  will  observe,  President 
Buchanan  and  his  Administration  were  hostile  to  Douglas 
for  his  opposition  to  their  Lecompton  policy. — M.  M.  M. 


no  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

Both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  left  the  train  at 
Mattoon,  distant  some  ten  miles  from  Charles- 
ton, to  accept  the  escort  of  their  respective  par- 
tisans. Mattoon  was  then  a  comparatively  new 
place,  a  station  on  the  Illinois  Central  Railway 
peopled  by  Northern  men.  Nearly  the  whole 
population  of  this  town  turned  out  to  escort  Mr. 
Lincoln  along  the  dusty  highway  to  Charleston. 
In  his  procession  was  a  chariot  containing  thirty- 
two  young  ladies,  representing  the  thirty-two 
States  of  the  Union,  and  carrying  banners  to 
designate  the  same.  Following  this  was  one 
young  lady  on  horseback,  holding  aloft  a  banner 
inscribed,  "Kansas — I  will  be  free."  As  she  was 
very  good-looking,  we  thought  that  she  would  not 
remain  free  always.  The  muses  had  been  wide 
awake  also,  for,  on  the  side  of  the  chariot,  was 
the  stirring  legend : 

"Westward  the  star  of  empire  takes  its  way; 
The  girls  link-on  to  Lincoln,  as  their  mothers  did  to 
Clay." 

The  Douglas  procession  was  likewise  a  formi- 
dable one.  He,  too,  had  his  chariot  of  young 
ladies,  and,  in  addition,  a  mounted  escort.  The 
two  processions  stretched  an  almost  interminable 
distance  along  the  road,  and  were  marked  by  a 
moving  cloud  of  dust. 

Before  the  Charleston  debate,  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
received  (from  Senator  Trumbull,  I  suppose) 
certain  official  documents  to  prove  that  Douglas 
had  attempted,  in  1856,  to  bring  Kansas  into  the 
Union  without  allowing  the  people  to  vote  upon 
her  constitution,  and  with  these  he  put  the  Little 
Giant  on  the  defensive,  and  pressed  him  so  hard 
that  we  all  considered  that  our  side  had  won  a 
substantial  victory.  ... 


INTRODUCTION  iii 

After  the  debate  was  ended  and  the  country 
people  had  mostly  dispersed,  the  demand  for 
speeches  was  still  far  from  being  satisfied.  Two 
meetings  were  started  in  the  evening,  with  blazing 
bonfires  in  the  street  to  mark  the  places.  Richard 
J.  Oglesby,  the  Republican  nominee  for  Congress 
(afterward  General,  Governor,  and  Senator),  ad- 
dressed one  of  them.  At  the  Douglas  meeting, 
Richard  T.  Merrick  and  U.  F.  Linder  were  the 
speakers.  Merrick  was  a  young  lawyer  from 
Maryland,  who  had  lately  settled  in  Chicago,  and 
a  fluent  and  rather  captivating  orator.  Linder 
was  an  Old  Line  Whig,  of  much  natural  ability, 
who  had  sided  with  the  Democrats  on  the  break- 
up of  his  own  party.  Later  in  the  campaign 
Douglas  wrote  him  a  letter  saying:  'Tor  God's 
sake,  Linder,  come  up  here  and  help  me."  This 
letter  got  into  the  newspapers,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  receivej-  of  it  was  immediately  dubbed 
'Tor-God's-Sake  Linder,"  by  which  name  he  was 
popularly  known  all  the  rest  of  his  days. 

There  was  nothing  of  special  interest  between 
the  Charleston  debate  and  that  which  took  place 
at  Galesburg,  October  7.  Here  we  had  the 
largest  audience  of  the  whole  series  and  the  worst 
day,  the  weather  being  very  cold  and  raw,  not- 
withstanding which  the  people  flocked  from  far 
and  near.  One  feature  of  the  Republican  pro- 
cession was  a  division  of  one  hundred  ladies  and 
an  equal  number  of  gentlemen  on  horseback  as  a 
special  escort  to  the  carriage  containing  Mr.  Lin- 
coln. The  whole  country  seemed  to  be  swarming 
and  the  crowd  stood  three  hours  in  the  college 
grounds,  in  a  cutting  wind,  listening  to  the  debate. 
Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  at  Galesburg  was,  in  my 
judgment,  the  best  of  the  series. 


112  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

At  Quincy,  October  13,  we  had  a  fine  day  and  a 
very  large  crowd,  although  not  so  large  as  at 
Galesburg.  The  usual  processions  and  parapher- 
nalia were  on  hand.  Old  Whiggery  was  largely 
represented  here,  and  in  front  of  the  Lincoln 
procession  was  a  live  raccoon  on  a  pole,  em- 
blematic of  a  by-gone  day  and  a  by-gone  party. 
When  this  touching  reminder  of  the  past  drew 
near  the  hotel  where  we  were  staying,  an  old 
weather-beaten  follower  of  Henry  Clay,  who  was 
standing  near  me,  was  moved  to  tears.  After 
mopping  his  face  he  made  his  way  up  to  Mr. 
Lincoln,  wrung  his  hand,  and  burst  into  tears 
again.  The  wicked  Democrats  carried  at  the  head 
of  their  procession  a  dead  'coon  suspended  by 
its  tail.  This  was  more  in  accord  with  existing 
facts  than  the  other  specimen,  but  our  prejudices 
ran  in  favor  of  live  'coons  in  that  part  of  Illinois. 
Farther  north  we  did  not  set  much  store  by  them. 
Here  I  saw  Carl  Schurz  for  the  first  time.  He 
was  hotly  in  the  fray,  and  was  an  eager  listener 
to  the  Quincy  debate.  Another  rising  star,  Frank 
P.  Blair,  Jr.,  was  battling  for  Lincoln  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  State. 

The  next  day  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  and 
their  retainers,  went  on  board  the  steamer  City 
of  Louisiana,  bound  for  Alton.  Here  the  last  of 
the  joint  debates  took  place,  October  15.  The 
day  was  pleasant  but  the  audience  was  the  small- 
est of  the  series,  except  the  one  at  Jonesboro. 
The  debate  passed  off  quietly  and  without  any 
incident  worthy  of  note. 

The  campaign  was  now  drawing  to  a  close. 
Everybody  who  had  borne  an  active  part  in  it 
was  pretty  well  fagged  out,  except  Mr.  Lincoln. 
He  showed  no  signs  of  fatigue.    Douglas's  voice 


INTRODUCTION  113 

was  worn  down  to  extreme  huskiness.  He  took 
great  pains  to  save  what  was  left  of  his  throat, 
but  to  Hsten  to  him  moved  one's  pity.  Neverthe- 
less, he  went  on  doggedly,  bravely,  and  with  a 
jaunty  air  of  confidence.  Mr.  Lincoln's  voice  was 
as  clear  and  far-reaching  as  it  was  the  day  he 
spoke  at  Beardstown,  two  months  before — a  high- 
pitched  tenor,  almost  a  falsetto,  that  could  be 
heard  at  a  greater  distance  than  Douglas's  heavy 
basso.  The  battle  continued  till  the  election 
(November  2),  which  took  place  in  a  cold,  pelt- 
ing rainstorm,  one  of  the  most  uncomfortable  in 
the  whole  year.  But  nobody  minded  the  weather. 
The  excitement  was  intense  all  day  in  all  parts  of 
the  State.  The  Republican  State  ticket  was 
elected  by  a  small  plurality,  the  vote  being  as 
follows : 

FOR   STATE   TREASURER. 

Miller  (Republican) 125,430 

Fondey   (Douglas  Democrat),  ....     121,609 
Dougherty  (Buchanan  Democrat),  .        .        .        5,0^^9 

The  Legislature  consisted  of  twenty-five  Sena- 
tors and  seventy-five  Representatives.  Thirteen 
Senators  held  over  from  the  preceding  election. 
Of  these,  eight  were  Democrats  and  five  Re- 
publicans. Of  the  twelve  Senators  elected  this 
year,  the  Democrats  elected  six  and  the  Repub- 
licans six.  So  the  new  Senate  was  composed  of 
fourteen  Democrats  and  eleven  Republicans. 

Of  the  seventy-five  members  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  the  Democrats  elected  forty  and 
the  Republicans  thirty-five. 

On  joint  ballot,  therefore,  the  Democrats  had 
fifty-four   and  the   Republicans   forty-six.     And 


114  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

by  this  vote  was  Mr.  Douglas  re-elected  Sena- 
tor. .  .  . 

What  is  more  to  the  purpose,  is  that  the  Repub- 
licans gained  29,241  votes,  as  against  a  Demo- 
cratic gain  of  21,332  (counting  the  Douglas  and 
Buchanan  vote  together),  over  the  presidential 
election  of  1856.  .  .  . 

Mr.  Lincoln,  as  he  said  at  the  Dixon  Confer- 
ence, had  gone  after  "larger  game,"  and  he  had 
bagged  it  to  a  greater  extent  than  he,  or  anybody, 
then,  imagined.  But  the  immediate  prize  was 
taken  by  his  great  rival. 

I  say  great  rival,  with  a  full  sense  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  I  heard  Mr.  Douglas  deliver 
his  speech  to  the  members  of  the  Illinois  Legis- 
lature, April  25,  1861,  in  the  gathering  tumult 
of  arms.  It  was  like  a  blast  of  thunder.  I  do  not 
think  that  it  is  possible  for  a  human  being  to  pro- 
duce a  more  prodigious  effect  with  spoken  words, 
than  he  produced  on  those  who  were  within  the 
sound  of  his  voice.  He  was  standing  in  the  same 
place  where  I  had  first  heard  Mr.  Lincoln.  The 
veins  of  his  neck  and  forehead  were  swollen  with 
passion,  and  the  perspiration  ran  down  his  face 
in  streams.  His  voice  had  recovered  its  clearness 
from  the  strain  of  the  previous  year,  and  was  fre- 
quently broken  with  emotion.  The  amazing  force 
that  he  threw  into  the  words :  ''When  hostile 
armies  are  marching  under  new  and  odious  ban- 
ners against  the  government  of  our  country,  the 
shortest  way  to  peace  is  the  most  stupendous  and 
unanimous  preparation  for  war,"  seemed  to  shake 
the  whole  building.  That  speech  hushed  the 
breath  of  treason  in  every  corner  of  the  State. 
Two  months  later  he  was  in  his  grave.  He  was 
only  forty-eight  years  old.  .  .  . 


INTRODUCTION  115 

Mention  should  be  made  of  the  services  of 
Senator  Trumbull  in  the  campaign.  Mr.  Trum- 
bull was  a  political  debater,  scarcely,  if  at  all, 
inferior  to  either  Lincoln  or  Douglas.  He  had 
given  Douglas  more  trouble  in  the  Senate,  during 
the  three  years  he  had  been  there,  than  anybody 
else  in  that  body.  He  had  known  Douglas  from 
his  youth,  and  he  knew  all  the  joints  in  his  armor. 
He  possessed  a  courage  equal  to  any  occasion, 
and  he  wielded  a  blade  of  tempered  steel.  He 
was  not  present  at  any  of  the  joint  debates,  or  at 
any  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  separate  meetings,  but  ad- 
dressed meetings  wherever  the  State  Central 
Committee  sent  him.  Mr.  Lincoln  often  spoke 
of  him  to  me,  and  always  in  terms  of  admira- 
tion. .  .  . 

I  think  that  this  was  the  most  important  intel- 
lectual wrestle  that  has  ever  taken  place  in  this 
country,  and  that  it  will  bear  comparison  with  any 
which  history  mentions.  Its  consequences  we  all 
know.  It  gave  Mr.  Lincoln  such  prominence  in 
the  public  eye  that  his  nomination  to  the  Presi- 
dency became  possible  and  almost  inevitable.  It 
put  an  apple  of  discord  in  the  Democratic  party 
which  hopelessly  divided  it  at  Charleston,  thus 
making  Republican  success  in  i860  morally  cer- 
tain. This  was  one  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  designs,  as 
has  been  already  shown.  Perhaps  the  Charles- 
ton schism  would  have  taken  place,  even  if  Doug- 
las had  not  been  driven  into  a  corner  at  Freeport, 
and  compelled  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  ''un- 
friendly legislation,"  but  it  is  more  likely  that  the 
break  would  have  been  postponed  a  few  years 
longer.  .  .  , 


ii6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

Correspondence  in  Regard  to  the  Debate. 

July  24  to  July  31,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Chicago,  111.,  July  24,  1858. 
Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas. 

My  dear  Sir :  Will  it  be  agreeable  to  you  to 
make  an  arrangement  for  you  and  myself  to 
divide  time,  and  address  the  same  audiences  the 
present  canvass?  Mr.  Judd,  who  will  hand  you 
this,  is  authorized  to  receive  your  answer;  and, 
if  agreeable  to  you,  to  enter  into  the  terms  of 
such  arrangement.    Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Hon  A.  Lincoln.  Chicago,  July  24,  1858. 

Dear  Sir :  Your  note  of  this  date,  in  which  you  in- 
quire if  it  would  be  agreeable  to  me  to  make  an  ar- 
rangement to  divide  the  time  and  address  the  same 
audiences  during  the  present  canvass,  was  handed  me 
by  Mr.  Judd.  Recent  events  have  interposed  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  such  an  arrangement. 

I  went  to  Springfield  last  week  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
ferring with  the  Democratic  State  Central  Committee 
upon  the  mode  of  conducting  the  canvass,  and  with 
them,  and  under  their  advice,  made  a  list  of  appoint- 
ments covering  the  entire  period  until  late  in  October. 
The  people  of  the  several  localities  have  been  notified  of 
the  times  and  places  of  the  meetings.  Those  appoint- 
ments have  all  been  made  for  Democratic  meetings,  and 
arrangements  have  been  made  by  which  the  Democratic 
candidates  for  Congress,  for  the  legislature,  and  other 
offices  will  be  present  and  address  the  people._  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  these  various  candidates,  in  con- 
nection with  myself,  will  occupy  the  whole  time  of  the 
day  and  evening,  and  leave  no  opportunity  for  other 
speeches. 

Besides,  there  is  another  consideration  which  should 
be  kept  in  mind.     It  has  been  suggested  recently  that  an 


CORRESPONDENCE  117 

arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third  candi- 
date for  the  United  States  Senate,  who,  with  yourself, 
should  canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me,  with  no 
other  purpose  than  to  insure  my  defeat,  by  dividing  the 
Democratic  party  for  your  benefit.  If  I  should  make 
this  arrangement  with  you,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
this  other  candidate,  who  has  a  common  object  with 
you,  would  desire  to  become  a  party  to  it,  and  claim  the 
right  to  speak  from  the  same  stand ;  so  that  he  and  you 
in  concert  might  be  able  to  take  the  opening  and  closing 
speech  in  every  case. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  surprise,  if  it 
was  your  original  intention  to  invite  such  an  arrange- 
ment, that  you  should  have  waited  until  after  I  had 
made  my  appointments,  inasmuch  as  we  were  both  here 
in  Chicago  together  for  several  days  after  my  arrival, 
and  again  at  Bloomington,  Atlanta,  Lincoln,  and  Spring- 
field, where  it  was  well  known  I  went  for  the  purpose 
of  consulting  with  the  State  Central  Committee,  and 
agreeing  upon  the  plan  of  the  campaign. 

While  under  these  circumstances  I  do  not  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  make  any  arrangements  which  would  deprive  the 
Democratic  candidates  for  Congress,  State  offices,  and 
the  legislature,  from  participating  in  the  discussion  at 
the  various  meetings  designated  by  the  Democratic 
State  Central  Committee,  I  will,  in  order  to  accommo- 
date you  as  far  as  it  is  in  my  power  to  do  so,  take  the 
responsibility  of  making  an  arrangement  with  you  for  a 
discussion  between  us  at  one  prominent  point  in  each 
congressional  district  in  the  State,  except  the  second  and 
sixth  districts,  where  we  have  both  spoken,  and  in  each 
of  which  cases  you  had  the  concluding  speech.  If 
agreeable  to  you,  I  will  indicate  the  following  places  as 
those  most  suitable  in  the  several  congressional  dis- 
tricts at  which  we  should  speak,  to  wit :  Freeport,  Otta- 
wa, Galesburg,  Quincy,  Alton,  Jonesboro  and  Charles- 
ton. I  will  confer  with  you  at  the  earliest  convenient 
opportunity  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  conducting  the 
debate,  the  times  of  meeting  at  the  several  places,  sub- 
ject to  the  condition  that  where  appointments  have  al- 
ready been  made  by  the  Democratic  State  Central  Com- 
mittee at  any  of  those  places,  I  must  insist  upon  you 
meeting  me  at  the  time  specified.  Very  respectfully, 
your  most  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  Douglas. 


ii8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Springfield,  July  29,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas. 

Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  the  24th  in  relation  to  an 
arrangement  to  divide  time  and  address  the  same 
audiences  is  received ;  and  in  apology  for  not 
sooner  replying,  allow  me  to  say  that  when  I  sat 
by  you  at  dinner  yesterday  I  was  not  aware  that 
you  had  answered  my  note,  nor  certainly  that  my 
own  note  had  been  presented  to  you.  An  hour 
after  I  saw  a  copy  of  your  answer  in  the  Chicago 
Times,  and  reaching  home  I  found  the  original 
awaiting  me.  Protesting  that  your  insinuations 
of  attempted  unfairness  on  my  part  are  unjust 
and  with  the  hope  that  you  did  not  very  consid- 
erately make  them,  I  proceed  to  reply.  To  your 
statement  that  ''It  has  been  suggested  recently 
that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring 
out  a  third  candidate  for  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate, who,  with  yourself,  should  canvass  the  State 
in  opposition  to  me,"  etc.,  I  can  only  say  that  such 
suggestion  must  have  been  made  by  yourself, 
for  certainly  none  such  has  been  made  by  or  to 
me,  or  otherwise,  to  my  knowledge.  Surely  you 
did  not  deliberately  conclude,  as  you  insinuate, 
that  I  was  expecting  to  drav/  you  into  an  ar- 
rangement of  terms,  to  be  agreed  on  by  yourself, 
by  which  a  third  candidate  and  myself  "in  con- 
cert might  be  able  to  take  the  opening  and  closing 
speech  in  every  case." 

As  to  your  surprise  that  I  did  not  sooner  make 
the  proposal  to  divide  time  with  you,  I  can  only 
say  I  made  it  as  soon  as  I  resolved  to  make  it.  I 
did  not  know  but  that  such  proposal  would  come 
from  you ;  I  waited  respectfully  to  see.     It  may 


CORRESPONDENCE  1 1 9 

have  been  well  known  to  you  that  you  went  to 
Springfield  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  on  the 
plan  of  campaign ;  but  it  was  not  so  known  to  me. 
When  your  appointments  were  announced  in  the 
papers,  extending  only  to  the  21st  of  August,  I 
for  the  first  time  considered  it  certain  that  you 
would  make  no  proposal  to  me,  and  then  resolved 
that,  if  my  friends  concurred,  I  would  make  one 
to  you.  As  soon  thereafter  as  I  could  see  and 
consult  with  friends  satisfactorily,  I  did  make 
the  proposal.  It  did  not  occur  to  me  that  the 
proposed  arrangements  could  derange  your 
plans  after  the  latest  of  your  appointments 
already  made.  After  that,  there  was  before 
the  election  largely  over  two  months  of  clear 
time. 

For  you  to  say  that  we  have  already  spoken  at 
Z^hicago  and  Springfield,  and  that  on  both  occa- 
sions I  had  the  concluding  speech,  is  hardly  a 
fair  statement.  The  truth  rather  is  this :  At 
Chicago,  July  9,  you  made  a  carefully  prepared 
conclusion  on  my  speech  of  June  16.  Twenty- 
four  hours  after,  I  made  a  hasty  conclusion  on 
yours  of  the  9th.  You  had  six  days  to  prepare, 
and  concluded  on  me  again  at  Bloomington  on 
the  i6th.  Twenty-four  hours  after,  I  concluded 
again  on  you  at  Springfield.  In  the  meantime, 
you  had  made  another  conclusion  on  me  at 
Springfield  which  I  did  not  hear,  and  of 
the  contents  of  which  I  knew  nothing  when  I 
spoke ;  so  that  your  speech  made  in  day- 
light, and  mine  at  night,  of  the  17th,  at  Spring- 
field, were  both  made  in  perfect  independence  of 
each  other.  The  dates  of  making  all  these 
speeches  will  show,  I  think,  that  in  the  matter  of 
time  for  preparation  the  advantage  has  all  been 


I20  SPEECHES  tAug.  12 

on  your  side,  and  that  none  of  the  external  cir- 
cumstances have  stood  to  my  advantage. 

I  agree  to  an  arrangement  for  us  to  speak  at 
the  seven  places  you  have  named,  and  at  your 
own  times,  provided  you  namie  the  times  at  once, 
so  that  I,  as  well  as  you,  can  have  to  myself  the 
time  not  covered  by  the  arrangement.  As  to  the 
other  details,  I  wish  perfect  reciprocity,  and  no 
more.  1  wish  as  much  time  as  you,  and  that 
conclusions  shall  alternate.  That  is  all.  Your 
obedient  servant,  A.  Lincoln. 

P.  S.  As  matters  now  stand,  I  shall  be  at  no 
more  of  your  exclusive  meetings ;  and  for  about 
a  week  from  to-day  a  letter  from  you  will  reach 
me  at  Springfield.  A.  L. 

Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Bement,  Piatt  Co.,  111.,  July  30,  1858. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  dated  yesterday,  accepting  my 
proposition  for  a  joint  discussion  at  one  prominent  point 
in  each  congressional  district,  as  stated  in  my  previous 
letter,  was  received  this  morning. 

The  times  and  places  designated  are  as  follows: 

Ottawa,  La  Salle  County August  21,  1858 

Freeport,  Stephenson  County.  .        "  27,  '^^ 

Jonesboro,    Union    County ....  September  15,  " 

Charleston,  Coles  County "  18,  "^ 

Galesburg.  Knox  County October  7, 

Quincy,  Adams  County "  i3>  " 

Alton,  Madison  County "  i5> 

I  agree  to  your  suggestion  that  we  shall  alternately 
open  and  close  the  discussion.  I  will  speak  at  Ottawa 
one  hour;  you  can  reply,  occupying  an  hour  and  a  half, 
and  I  will  then  follow  for  half  an  hour.  At  Freeport, 
you  shall  open  the  discussion  and  speak  one  hour;  I 
will  follow  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  you  can  then 
reply  for  half  an  hour.  We  will  alternate  in  like  man- 
ner in  each  successive  place.  Very  respectfully,  your 
obedient  servant,  S.  A.  Douglas. 

Hon.  A.  Lincoln,  Springfield,  111. 


i8s8}  AT  BEARDSTOWN  121: 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Springfield,  July  31,  1858. 
Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas. 

Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  yesterday,  naming  places, 
times,  and  terms  for  joint  discussions  between  us, 
was  received  this  morning.  Although  by  the 
terms,  as  you  propose,  you  take  four  openings 
and  closes  to  my  three,  I  accede,  and  thus  close 
the  arrangement.  I  direct  this  to  you  at  Hills- 
boro,  and  shall  try  to  have  both  your  letter  and 
this  appear  in  the  Journal  and  Register  of  Mon- 
day morning.     Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  Lincoln. 

"The  Conspiracy  Charge." 

Fragment  of  Speech  in  Rejoinder  to  the 
Reply  of  Senator  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's Springfield  Speeches  of  June  16 
and  July  17,  1858.  Delivered  at  Beards- 
town,  III.     August  12,  1858. 

I  made  a  speech  in  June  last  in  which  I 
pointed  out,  briefly  and  consecutively,  a  series  of 
public  measures  leading  directly  to  the  national- 
ization of  slavery — the  spreading  of  that  institu- 
tion over  all  the  Territories  and  all  the  States, 
old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as  South.  I 
enumerated  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, which,  every  candid  man  must  acknowl- 
edge, conferred  upon  emigrants  to  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  the  right  to  carry  slaves  there  and  hold 
them  in  bondage,  whereas  formerly  they  had  no 
such  right ;  I  alluded  to  the  events  which  followed 
that    repeal,    events    in   which   Judge   Douglas's 


122  SPEECHES  [Aug.  12 

name  figures  quite  prominently ;  I  referred  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  and  the  extraordinary  means 
taken  to  prepare  the  pubHc  mind  for  that  decision ; 
the  efforts  put  forth  by  President  Pierce  to  make 
the  people  believe  that^  in  the  election  of  James 
Buchanan,  they  had  indorsed  the  doctrine  that 
slavery  may  exist  in  the  free  Territories  of  the 
Union — the  earnest  exhortation  put  forth  by 
President  Buchanan  to  the  people  to  stick  to  that 
decision  whatever  it  might  be — the  close-fitting 
niche  in  the  Nebraska  bill,  wherein  the  right  of 
the  people  to  govern  themselves  is  made  ''subject 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States" — the 
extraordinary  haste  made  by  Judge  Douglas  to 
give  this  decision  an  indorsement  at  the  capital 
of  Illinois.  I  alluded  to  other  concurring  circum- 
stances, which  I  need  not  repeat  now,  and  I  said 
that,  though  I  could  not  open  the  bosoms  of  men 
and  find  out  their  secret  motives,  yet,  when  I 
found  the  framework  of  a  barn,  or  a  bridge,  or 
any  other  structure,  built  by  a  number  of  carpen- 
ters— Stephen  and  Franklin  and  Roger  and  James 
— and  so  built  that  each  tenon  had  its  proper 
mortise,  and  the  whole  forming  a  symmetrical 
piece  of  workmanship,  I  should  say  that  those 
carpenters  all  worked  on  an  intelligible  plan,  and 
understood  each  other  from  the  beginning.  This 
embraced  the  main  argument  in  my  speech  before 
the  Republican  State  Convention  in  June.  Judge 
Douglas  received  a  copy  of  my  speech  some  two 
weeks  before  his  return  to  Illinois.  He  had  ample 
time  to  examine  it  and  reply  to  it,  but  he  wholly 
overlooked  the  body  of  my  argument,  and  said 
nothing  about  the  ''conspiracy  charge,"  as  he 
terms  it.  He  made  his  speech  up  of  complaints 
against  our  tendencies  to  negro  equality  and  amal- 


1858]  AT  BEARDSTOWN  123 

gamation.  Well,  seeing  that  Douglas  had  had 
the  process  served  on  him,  that  he  had  taken 
notice  of  the  process,  that  he  had  come  into 
court  and  pleaded  to  a  part  of  the  complaint,  but 
had  ignored  the  main  issue,  I  took  a  default  on 
him.  I  held  that  he  had  no  plea  to  make  to  the 
general  charge.  So  when  I  was  called  on  to  reply 
to  him,  twenty-four  hours  afterwards,  I  renewed 
the  charge  as  explicitly  as  I  could.  My  speech 
was  reported  and  published  on  the  following 
morning,  and,  of  course.  Judge  Douglas  saw  it. 
He  went  from  Chicago  to  Bloomington  and  there 
made  another  and  longer  speech,  and  yet  took  no 
notice  of  the  ''conspiracy  charge."  He  then  went 
to  Springfield  and  made  another  elaborate  argu- 
ment, but  was  not  prevailed  upon  to  know  any- 
thing about  the  outstanding  indictment.  I  made 
another  speech  at  Springfield,  this  time  taking  it 
for  granted  that  Judge  Douglas  was  satisfied  to 
take  his  chances  in  the  campaign  with  the  im- 
putation of  the  conspiracy  hanging  over  him.  It 
was  not  until  he  went  into  a  small  town,  Clinton, 
in  De  Witt  County,  where  he  delivered  his  fourth 
or  fifth  regular  speech,  that  he  found  it  convenient 
to  notice  this  matter  at  all.  At  that  place  (I  was 
standing  in  the  crowd  when  he  made  his  speech), 
he  bethought  himself  that  he  was  charged  with 
something,  and  his  reply  was  that  his  "self-respect 
alone  prevented  him  from  calling  it  a  falsehood." 
Well,  my  friends,  perhaps  he  so  far  lost  his  self- 
respect  in  Beardstown  as  to  actually  call  it  a 
falsehood. 

But  now  I  have  this  reply  to  make :  that  while 
the  Nebraska  bill  was  pending.  Judge  Douglas 
helped  to  vote  down  a  clause  giving  the  people  of 
the  Territories  the  right  to  exclude  slavery  if  they 


124  SPEECHES  tAug.  17 

chose;  that  neither  while  the  bill  was  pending, 
nor  at  any  other  time,  would  he  give  his  opinion 
whether  the  people  had  the  right  to  exclude  slav- 
ery, though  respectfully  asked;  that  he  made  a 
report,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories,  in  which  he  said  the  rights 
of  the  people  of  the  Territories,  in  this  regard, 
are  "held  in  abeyance,"  and  cannot  be  immediately 
exercised ;  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  expressly 
denies  any  such  right,  but  declares  that  neither 
Congress  nor  the  Territorial  Legislature  can  keep 
slavery  out  of  Kansas  and  that  Judge  Douglas 
indorses  that  decision.  All  these  charges  are 
new ;  that  is,  I  did  not  make  them  in  my  original 
speech.  They  are  additional  and  cumulative 
testimony.  I  bring  them  forward  now  and  dare 
Judge  Douglas  to  deny  one  of  them.  Let  him  do 
so  and  I  wall  prove  them  by  such  testimony  as 
shall  confound  himx  forever.  I  say  to  you,  that  it 
would  be  more  to  the  purpose  for  Judge  Douglas 
to  say  that  he  did  not  repeal  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise; that  he  did  not  make  slavery  possible 
where  it  was  impossible  before ;  that  he  did  not 
leave  a  niche  in  the  Nebraska  bill  for  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  to  rest  in;  that  he  did  not  vote 
down  a  clause  giving  the  people  the  right  to  ex- 
clude slavery  if  they  wanted  to ;  that  he  did  not 
refuse  to  give  his  individual  opinion  whether  a 
Territorial  Legislature  could  exclude  slavery; 
that  he  did  not  make  a  report  to  the  Senate,  in 
which  he  said  that  the  rights  of  the  people,  in  this 
regard,  were  held  in  abeyance  and  could  not  be 
immediately  exercised ;  that  he  did  not  make  a 
hasty  indorsement  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  over 
at  Springfield  ;*  that  he  does  not  now  indorse  that 

*  This  refers  to  Douglas's  speech  on  June  12,  1857. 


1858]  AT  LEIVISTON  125 

decision;  that  that  decision  does  not  take  away 
from  the  Territorial  Legislature  the  right  to  ex- 
clude slavery ;  and  that  he  did  not,  in  the  original 
Nebraska  bill,  so  couple  the  words  State  and 
Territory  together  that  what  the  Supreme  Court 
has  done  in  forcing  open  all  the  Territories  to 
slavery  it  may  yet  do  in  forcing  open  all  the 
States.  I  say  it  would  be  vastly  more  to  the  point 
for  Judge  Douglas  to  say  that  he  did  not  do  some 
of  these  things;  that  he  did  not  forge  some  of 
these  links  of  testimony,  than  to  go  vociferating 
about  the  country  that  possibly  he  may  hint  that 
somebody  is  a  liar. 


"Back  to  the  Declaration." 

Speech  at  Lewiston,  III.    August  17,  1858.* 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  formed 
by  the  representatives  of  American  liberty  from 
thirteen  States  of  the  Confederacy,  twelve  of 
which  were  slave-holding  communities.  We  need 
not  discuss  the  way  or  the  reason  of  their  becom- 
ing slave-holding  communities.  It  is  sufficient 
for  our  purpose  that  all  of  them  greatly  deplored 
the  evil  and  that  they  placed  a  provision  in  the 
Constitution  which  they  supposed  would  gradu- 
ally remove  the  disease  by  cutting  off  its  source. 
This  was  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade.  So 
general  was  the  conviction,  the  public  determina- 
tion, to  abolish  the  African  slave  trade,  that  the 
provision  which  I  have  referred  to  as  being  placed 
in  the  Constitution  declared  that  it  should  not  be 
abolished  prior  to  the  year   1808.     A  constitu- 

*  Reported  by  the  Chicago  Press  and  Tribune. 


126  SPEECHES  [Aug.  17 

tional  provision  was  necessary  to  prevent  the  peo- 
ple, through  Congress,  from  putting  a  stop  to  the 
traffic  immediately  at  the  close  of  the  war.    Now 
if  slavery  had  been  a  good  thing,  would  the  fa- 
thers of  the  republic  have  taken  a  step  calculated 
to  diminish  its  beneficent  influences  among  them- 
selves,_  and  snatch  the  boon  wholly   from  their 
posterity?     These  communities,   by  their   repre- 
sentatives in  old  Independence  Hall,  said  to  the 
whole  world  of  men :  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be 
self-evident :  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain 
inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  lib- 
erty, and  the  ^pursuit  of  happiness."     This  was 
their  majestic  interpretation  of  the  economy  of 
the  Universe.     This  was  their  lofty,  and  wise,  and 
noble  understanding  of  the  justice  of  the  Creator 
to  his  creatures.     Yes,  gentlemen,  to  all  his  crea- 
tures, to  the  whole  great  family  of  man.    In  their 
enlightened  belief,  nothing  stamped  with  the  Di- 
vine image  and  likeness  was  sent  into  the  world 
to  be  trodden  on  and  degraded  and  imbruted  by 
its  fellows.     They  grasped  not  only  the  whole 
race  of  man  then  living,  but  they  reached  forward 
and   seized   upon   the   farthest   posterity.      They 
erected  a  beacon  to  guide  their  children,  and  their 
children's    children,    and    the    countless    myriads 
who  should  inhabit  the  earth  in  other  ages.    Wise 
statesmen  as  they  were,  they  knew  the  tendency 
of  prosperity  to  breed  tyrants,  and  so  they  estab- 
lished these  great  self-evident  truths,  that  when 
in  the  distant  future  some  man,   some   faction, 
some  interest,  should  set  up  the  doctrine  that  none 
but  rich  men,  or  none  but  white  men,  or  none  but 
Anglo-Saxon  white   men,   were  entitled  to  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  their  pos- 


i858]  AT  LEWISTON 


127 


terity  might  look  up  again  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  and  take  courage  to  renew  the  bat- 
tle which  their  fathers  began,  so  that  truth  and 
justice  and  mercy  and  all  the  humane  and  Chris- 
tian virtues  might  not  be  extinguished  from  the 
land  ;  so  that  no  man  would  hereafter  dare  to  limit 
and  circumscribe  the  great  principles  on  which 
the  temple  of  liberty  was  being  built. 

Now,  my  countrymen,  if  you  have  been  taught 
doctrines  conflicting  with  the  great  landmarks  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  if  you  have 
listened  to  suggestions  which  would  take  away 
from  its  grandeur  and  mutilate  the  fair  sym- 
metry of  its  proportions  ;  if  you  have  been  inclined 
to  believe  that  all  men  are  not  created  equal  in 
those  inalienable  rights  enumerated  by  our  chart 
of  liberty,  let  me  entreat  you  to  come  back.  Re- 
turn to  the  fountain  whose  waters  spring  close  by 
the  blood  of  the  revolution.  Think  nothing  of 
me — take  no  thought  for  the  political  fate  of  any 
man  whomsoever — but  come  back  to  the  truths 
that  are  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  You 
may  do  anything  with  me  you  choose,  if  you  will 
but  heed  these  sacred  principles.  You  may  not 
only  defeat  me  for  the  Senate,  but  you  may  take 
me  and  put  me  to  death.  While  pretending  no 
indifference  to  earthly  honors,  I  do  claim  to  be 
actuated  in  this  contest  by  something  higher  than 
an  anxiety  for  office.  I  charge  you  to  drop  every 
paltry  and  insignificant  thought  for  any  man's 
success.  It  is  nothing;  I  am  nothing;  Judge 
Douglas  is  nothing.  But  do  not  destroy  that  im- 
m.ortal  emblem  of  Humanity — the  Declaration  of 
American  Independence. 


128  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

First  Joint  Debate,  at  Ottawa. 

August  21,  1858. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  appear  before  you  to-day 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  leading  political 
topics  which  now  agitate  the  public  mind.  By  an  ar- 
rangement between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  we  are 
present  here  to-day  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  joint 
discussion,  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  great 
political  parties  of  the  State  and  Union,  upon  the 
principles  in  issue  between  those  parties;  and  this  vast 
concourse  of  people  shows  the  deep  feeling  which  per- 
vades the  public  mind  in  regard  to  the  questions  dividing 
us. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great 
political  parties,  known  as  the  Whig  and  Democratic 
parties.  Both  were  national  and  patriotic,  advocating 
principles  that  were  universal  in  their  application.  An 
old-line  Whig  could  proclaim  his  principles  in  Louisiana 
and  Massachusetts  alike.  Whig  principles  had  no 
boundary  sectional  line — they  were  not  limited  by  the 
Ohio  River,  nor  by  the  Potomac,  nor  by  the  line  of  the 
free  and  slave  States,  but  applied  and  were  proclaimed 
wherever  the  Constitution  ruled  or  the  American  flag 
waved  over  the  American  soil.  So  it  was,  and  so  it  is 
with  the  great  Democratic  party,  which,  from  the  days 
of  Jefferson  until  this  period,  has  proven  itself  to  be 
the  historic  party  of  this  nation.  While  the  Whig  and 
Democratic  parties  differed  in  regard  to  a  bank,  the 
tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub- 
treasury,  they  agreed  on  the  great  slavery  question 
which  now  agitates  the  Union.  I  say  that  the  Whig 
party  and  the  Democratic  party  agreed  on  the  slavery 
question,  while  they  differed  on  those  matters  of  ex- 
pediency to  which  I  have  referred.  The  Whig  party 
and  the  Democratic  party  jointly  adopted  the  com- 
promise measures  of  1850  as  the  basis  of  a  proper  and 
just  solution  of  the  slavery  question  in  all  its  forms. 
Clay  was  the  great  leader,  with  Webster  on  his  right 
and  Cass  on  his  left,  and  sustained  by  the  patriots  in 
the  Whig  and  Democratic  ranks  who  had  devised  and 
enacted  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  129 

In  1851  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party 
united  in  Illinois  in  adopting  resolutions  indorsing  and 
approving  the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  as  the  proper  adjustment  of  that  question.  In 
1852.  when  the  Whig  party  assembled  in  convention  at 
Baltimore  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  candidate 
for  the  presidency,  the  first  thing  it  did  was  to  declare 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  in  substance  and  in 
principle,  a  suitable  adjustment  of  that  question.  [Here 
the  speaker  7vas  interrupted  by  loud  and  long-continued 
applause.]  My  friends,  silence  will  be  more  acceptable  to 
me  in  the  discussion  of  these  questions  than  applause.  I 
desire  to  address  myself  to  your  judgment,  your  under- 
standing, and  your  consciences,  and  not  to  your  passions 
or  your  enthusiasm.  When  the  Democratic  convention 
assembled  in  Baltimore  in  the  same  year,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  nominating  a  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
presidency,  it  also  adopted  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850  as  the  basis  of  Democratic  action.  Thus  you 
see  that  up  to  1853-54,  the  Whig  party  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party  both  stood  on  the  same  platform  with  re- 
gard to  the  slavery  question.  That  platform  was  the 
right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to 
decide  their  local  and  domestic  institutions  for  them- 
selves, subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 

During  the  session  of  Congress  of  1853-54,  I  intro- 
duced into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  bill  to 
organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  on 
that  principle  which  had  been  adopted  in  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850,  approved  by  the  Whig  party  and 
the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois  in  185 1,  and  indorsed 
by  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  in  national 
convention  in  1852.  In  order  that  there  might  be  no 
misunderstanding  in  relation  to  the  principle  involved  in 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  I  put  forth  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  in  these  words:  "It  is 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  or  to  exclude  it 
therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitution."  Thus 
you  see  that  up  to  1854,  when  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill  was  brought  into  Congress  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  the  principles  which  both  parties  had  up  to 
that   time   indorsed   and   approved,   there   had   been    no 


I30  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

division  in  this  country  in  regard  to  that  principle  ex- 
cept the  opposition  of  the  Abolitionists.  In  the  House 
of  Representatves  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  upon  a  reso- 
lution asserting  that  principle,  every  Whig  and  every 
Democrat  in  the  House  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and 
only  four  men  voted  against  it,  and  those  four  were 
old-line  Abolitionists. 

In  1854  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Lyman  Trum- 
bull  entered  into  an  arrangement,  one  with  the  other, 
and  each  with  his  respective  friends,  to  dissolve  the  Old 
Whig  party  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  dissolve  the  old 
Democratic    party    on    the    other,    and    to    connect    the 
members    of   both   into   an   Abolition   party,    under   the 
name  and  disguise  of  a  Republican  party.     The  terms  of 
that  arrangement  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  have 
been   published   by   Lincoln's   special    friend,   James   H. 
Matheny,    Esq.,    and    they    were    that    Lincoln    should 
have  General  Shields's  place  in  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate, which  was  then  about  to  become  vacant,  and  that 
Trumbull  should  have  my  seat  when  my  term  expired. 
Lincoln   went  to   work  to   Abolitionize  the   Old   Whig 
party  all  over  the  State,  pretending  that  he  was  then  as 
good  a  Whig  as  ever ;  and  Trumbull  went  to  work  in  his 
part  of  the  State  preaching  Abolitionism  in  its  milder 
and  lighter  form,  and  trying  to  Abolitionize  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  bring  old  Democrats  handcuffed  and 
bound  hand  and  foot  into  the  Abolition  camp.     In  pur- 
suance of  the  arrangement,  the  parties  met  at  Spring- 
field in  October,   1854.  and  proclaimed  their  new  plat- 
form.    Lincoln   was   to  bring   into  the   Abolition   camp 
the  old-line  Whigs,  and  transfer  them  over  to  Giddings, 
Chase,  Fred  Douglass,  and  Parson  Lovejoy,  who  were 
ready  to  receive  them  and  christen  them  in  their  new 
faith.     They  laid  down  on  that  occasion  a  platform  for 
their  new  Republican  party,  which  was  thus  to  be  con- 
structed.    I  have  the  resolutions  of  the  State  convention 
then  held,  which   was  the  first  mass   State   convention 
ever  held  in  Illinois  by  the  Black  Republican  party,  and 
I  now  hold  them  in  my  hands  and  will  read  a  part  of 
them,  and  cause  the  others  to  be  printed.     Here  are  the 
most  important  and  material  resolutions  of  this  Aboli- 
tion platform : 

I.  Resolved,  That  we  believe  this  truth  to  be  self-evident, 
that  when  parties  become  subversive  of  the  ends  for  which 
they  are  established,  or  incapable  of  restoring  the  govern- 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA 


131 


ment  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  the 
right  and  duty  of  the  people  to  dissolve  the  political 
bands  by  which  they  may  have  been  connected  therewith, 
and  to  organize  new  parties  upon  such  principles  and 
with  such  views  as  the  circumstances  and  the  exigencies  of 
the  nation  may  demand. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  times  imperatively  demand  the 
reorganization  of  parties,  and,  repudiating  all  previous 
party  attachments,  names,  and  predilections,  we  unite  our- 
selves together  in  defense  of  the  liberty  and  Constitution 
of  the  country,  and  will  hereafter  cooperate  as  the  Repub- 
lican party,  pledged  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  follow- 
ing purposes  :  To  bring  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment back  to  the  control  of  first  principles ;  to  restore 
Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  the  position  of  free  Territories ; 
that,  as  the  Con.  'itution  of  the  United  States  vests  in 
the  States,  and  not  in  Congress,  the  power  to  legislate 
for  the  extradition  of  fugitives  from  labor,  to  repeal  and 
entirely  abrogate  the  fugitive-slave  law  ;  to  restrict  slavery 
to  these  States  in  which  it  exists  ;  to  prohibit  the  admis- 
sion of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union  ;  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  to  exclude  slavery 
from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the  general  govern- 
ment has  exclusive  jurisdiction  ;  and  to  resist  the  acquire- 
ment of  any  more  Territories  unless  the  practice  of 
slavery  therein   forever   shall   have  been  prohibited. 

3.  Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we 
will  use  such  constitutional  and  lawful  means  as  shall 
seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we 
will  support  no  man  for  office,  under  the  general  or  State 
government,  who  is  not  positively  and  fully  committed  to 
the  support  of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal  charac- 
ter and  conduct  is  not  a  guaranty  that  he  is  reliable, 
and  who  shall  not  have  abjured  old  party  allegiance  and 
ties. 

Now,  gentlemen,  your  Black  Republicans  have  cheered 
every  one  of  those  propositions,  and  yet  I  venture  to  say 
that  you  cannot  get  Mr.  Lincoln  to  come  out  and  say 
that  he  is  now  in  favor  of  eath  one  of  them.  That  these 
propositions,  one  and  all,  constitute  the  platform  of  the 
Black  Republican  party  of  this  day,  I  have  no  doubt ; 
and  when  you  were  not  aware  for  what  purpose  I  was 
reading  them,  your  Black  Republicans  cheered  them  as 
good  Black  Republican  doctrines.  My  object  in  reading 
these  resolutions  was  to  put  the  question  to  Abraham 
Lincoln  this  day,  whether  he  now  stands  and  will  stand 
by  each  article  in  that  creed,  and  carry  it  out.  I  desire 
to  know  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  to-day  stands  as  he  did  in 


132  DEBATE  JVITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

1854,  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  fugi- 
tive-slave   law.     I    desire    him    to   answer    whether    he 
stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the  ad- 
mission of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union,  even 
if  the  people  want  them.     I  want  to  know  whether  he 
stands   pledged  against  the  admission   of  a  new    State 
into  the  Union  with  such  a  constitution  as  the  people 
of   that   State  may   see  fit  to   make.     I   want   to  know 
whether   he   stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition   of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     I   desire  him  to 
answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of 
the  slave-trade   between   the   different    States.     I   desire 
to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery 
in   all   the   Territories  of  the   United   States.    North  as 
well  as  South  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line.     I  de- 
sire him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  any  more  territory  unless   slavery  is  pro- 
hibited therein.     I  want  his  answer  to  these  questions. 
Your  affirmative  cheers  in  favor  of  this  Abolition  plat- 
form are  not  satisfactory.     I  ask  Abraham  Lincoln  to 
answer  these  questions,  in  order  that  when  I  trot  him 
down  to  lower  Eg>'pt,  I  may  put  the  same  questions  to 
him.     My  principles   are  the   same   everywhere.     I   can 
proclaim  them  alike  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East, 
and  the  West.     My  principles  will  apply  wherever  the 
Constitution  prevails  and  the  American  flag  waves.     I 
desire   to  know   whether    iMr.   Lincoln's   principles   will 
bear  transplanting  from   Ottawa  to  Jonesboro?     I  put 
these    questions   to   him   to-day   distinctly,    and   ask   an 
answer.     I  have  a  right  to  an  answer,  for  I  quote  from 
the  platform  of  the  Republican  party,  made  by  himself 
and  others  at  the  time  that  party  was  formed,  and  the 
bargain  made  by  Lincoln  to  dissolve  and  kill  the  Old 
Whig  party,  and  transfer  its  members,  bound  hand  and 
foot,  to  the  Abolition  party,  under  the  direction  of  Gid- 
dings  and  Fred  Douglass.     -In  the  remarks  I  have  made 
on  this  platform,  and  the  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln  upon 
it,  I  mean  nothing  personally  disrespectful  or  unkind  to 
that  gentleman.     I  have  known  him  for  nearly  twenty- 
five  years.     There  were  many  points  of  sympathy  be- 
tween us  when  we  first  got  acquainted.     We  were  both 
comparatively  boys,   and   both   struggling  with  poverty 
in  a  strange  land.     I  was  a  school-teacher  in  the  town  of 
Winchester,  and  he  a  flourishing  grocery-keeper  in  the 
town  of  Salem.     He  was  more  successful  in  his  occu- 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  133 

pation  than  I  was  in  mine,  and  hence  more  fortunate  in 
this   world's   goods.     Lincoln   is   one   of  those   peculiar 
men  who  perform  with  admirable  skill  everj-thing  which 
they  undertake.     I  made  as  good  a  school-teacher  as  I 
could,  and  when  a  cabinet-maker  I  made  a  good  bed- 
stead and  tables,  although  my  old  boss  said  I  succeeded 
better  with  bureaus  and  secretaries  than  with  anything 
else :  but  I  believe  that  Lincoln  was  always  more  suc- 
cessful in  business  than  I,  for  his  business  enabled  him 
to  get  into  the  legislature.     I  met  him  there,  however, 
and    had    sympathy    with    him.    because    of   the    up-hill 
struggle  we  both  had  in  life.     He  was  then  just  as  good 
at  telling  an  anecdote  as  now.     He  could  beat  anj-  of  the 
boys    wrestling,    or    running    a    foot-race,    in    pitching 
quoits  or  tossing  a  copper;  could  ruin  more  liquor  than 
all  the  boys  of  the  town  together,  and  the  dignit>'  and 
impartiality  with  which  he  presided  at  a  horse-race  or 
fist-fight  excited  the  admiration  and  won  the  praise  of 
ever>-body  that   was  present  and   participated.     I   sym- 
pathized   with    him    because    he    was    struggling    with 
difficulties,  and  so  was  I.     'Sir.  Lincoln  ser\-ed  with  me 
in  the  legislature  in  1836.  when  we  both  retired,  and  he 
subsided,  or  became  submerged,  and  he  was  lost  sight  of 
as  a  public  man  for  some  years.     In  1846,  when  Wilmot 
introduced    his    celebrated    proviso,    and   the    Abolition 
tornado  swept  over  the  country-.  Lincoln  again  turned 
up  as  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Sangamon  dis- 
trict.    I  was  then  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
and    was    glad   to    welcome    my    old    friend    and    com- 
panion.    Whilst  in   Congress,   he  distinguished  himself 
by  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  war.  taking  the  side  of 
the  common  enemy  against  his  own  countn,- ;  and  when 
he  returned  home  he  found  that  the  indignation  of  the 
people  followed  him  ever^-where.  and  he  was  again  sub- 
merged or  obliged  to  retire  into  private  life,  forgotten 
"by  his  former  friends.     He  came  up  again  in  1854.  just 
in   time   to   make   this    Abolition   or   Black    Republican 
platform,   in   company  with   Giddings.   Lovejoy.   Chase, 
and  Fred  Douglass,  for  the  Republican  party  to  stand 
upon.     Trumbull,  too,  was  one  of  our  own  contempo- 
raries.    He  was  born  and  raised  in  old  Connecticut,  was 
bred    a    Federalist,    but    removing    to    Georgia,    turned 
Kullifier  when  nullification  was  popular,  and  as  soon  as 
he  disposed  of  his  clocks  and  wound  up  his  business, 
migrated  to  Illinois,  turned  politician  and  lawyer  here, 


134  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

and  made  his  appearance  in  1841  as  a  member  of  the 
legislature.  He  became  noted  as  the  author  of  the 
scheme  to  repudiate  a  large  portion  of  the  State  debt 
of  Illinois,  which,  if  successful,  would  have  brought 
infamy  and  disgrace  upon  the  fair  escutcheon  of  our 
glorious  State.  The  odium  attached  to  that  measure 
consigned  him  to  oblivion  for  a  time.  I  helped  to  do  it. 
I  walked  into  a  public  meeting  in  the  hall  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  replied  to  his  repudiating 
speeches,  and  resolutions  were  carried  over  his  head 
denouncing  repudiation,  and  asserting  the  moral  and 
legal  obligation  of  Illinois  to  pay  every  dollar  of  the 
debt  she  owed  and  every  bond  that  bore  her  seal. 
Trumbull's  malignity  has  followed  me  since  I  thus  de- 
feated his  infamous  scheme. 

These  two  men  having  formed  this  combination  to 
Abolitionize  the  Old  Whig  party  and  the  old  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  put  themselves  into  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  in  pursuance  of  their  bargain,  are  now 
carrying  out  that  arrangement.  Matheny  states  that 
Trumbull  broke  faith ;  that  the  bargain  was  that 
Lincoln  should  be  the  senator  in  Shields's  place,  and 
Trumbull  was  to  wait  for  mine ;  and  the  story  goes 
that  Trumbull  cheated  Lincoln,  having  control  of  four 
or  five  Abolitionized  Democrats  who  were  holding  over 
in  the  Senate ;  he  would  not  let  them  vote  for  Lincoln, 
which  obliged  the  rest  of  the  Abolitionists  to  support 
him  in  order  to  secure  an  Abolition  senator.  There  are 
a  number  of  authorities  for  the  truth  of  this  besides 
Matheny,  and  I  suppose  that  even  Mr.  Lincoln  will 
not  deny  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  demands  that  he  shall  have  the  place  in- 
tended for  Trumbull,  as  Trumbull  cheated  him  and  got 
his,  and  Trumbull  is  stumping  the  State  traducing  me 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  position  for  Lincoln,  in 
order  to  quiet  him.  It  was  in  consequence  of  this  ar- 
rangement that  the  Republican  convention  was  impan- 
eled to  instruct  for  Lincoln  and  nobody  else,  and  it  was 
on  this  account  that  they  passed  resolutions  that  he  was 
their  first,  their  last,  and  their  only  choice.  Archy  Wil- 
liams was  nowhere,  Brov/ning  was  nobody,  Wentworth 
was  not  to  be  considered ;  they  had  no  man  in  the  Re- 
publican party  for  the  place  except  Lincoln,  for  the 
reason  that  he  demanded  that  they  should  carry  out  the 
arrangement. 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  135 

Having  formed  this  new  party  for  the  benefit  of  de- 
serters from  Whiggery  and  deserters  from  Democracy, 
and  having  laid  down  the  AboHtion  platform  which  I 
have  read,  Lincoln  now  takes  his  stand  and  proclaims 
his  Abolition  doctrines.  Let  me  read  a  part  of  them. 
In  his  speech  at  Springfield  to  the  convention  which 
nominated  him  for  the  Senate,  he  said : 

In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  "A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect  the 
house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the 
opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it 
and  place  it  where  the  pviblic  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or 
its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well 
as  South. 

["Good,"  "good,"  and  cheers.] 

I  am  delighted  to  hear  you  Black  Republicans  say 
*'good."  I  have  no  doubt  that  doctrine  expresses  your 
sentiments,  and  I  will  prove  to  you  now,  if  you  listen 
to  me,  that  it  is  revolutionary  and  destructive  of  the  ex- 
istence of  this  government.  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  the  extract* 
from  which  I  have  read,  says  that  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  in  the  same  condition  in  which  it 
was  made  by  its  framers — divided  into  free  and  slave 
States.  He  says  that  it  has  existed  for  about  seventy 
years  thus  divided,  and  yet  he  tells  you  that  it  cannot 
endure  permanently  on  the  same  principles  and  in  the 
same  relative  condition  in  which  our  fathers  made  it. 
Why  can  it  not  exist  divided  into  free  and  slave  States? 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Franklin,  Madison,  Hamilton, 
Jay,  and  the  great  men  of  that  day  made  this  govern- 
ment divided  into  free  States  and  slave  States,  and  left 
each  State  perfectly  free  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  Why  can  it  not  exist  on  the  same 
principles  on  which  our  fathers  made  it?  They  knew 
when  they  framed  the  Constitution  that  in  a  country  as 
wide  and  broad  as  this,  with  such  a  variety  of  climate, 
production,  and  interest,  the  people  necessarily  required 
different  laws  and  institutions  in  different  localities. 
They  knew  that  the  laws  and  regulations  which  would  suit 


136  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  unsuited 
to  the  rice-plantations  of  South  Carolina,  and  they 
therefore  provided  that  each  State  should  retain  its 
own  legislature  and  its  own  sovereignty,  with  the  full 
and  complete  power  to  do  as  it  pleased  within  its  own 
limits,  in  all  that  was  local  and  not  national.  One  of  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States  was  the  right  to  regulate 
the  relations  between  master  and  servant,  on  the  slavery 
question.  At  the  time  the  Constitution  was  framed, 
there  were  thirteen  States  in  the  Union,  twelve  of 
which  were  slaveholding  States  and  one  a  free  State. 
Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  preached  by  Mr. 
Lincoln,  that  the  States  should  all  be  free  or  all  be  slave, 
had  prevailed,  and  what  would  have  been  the  result? 
Of  course,  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  would  have 
overruled  the  one  free  State,  and  slavery  would  have 
been  fastened  by  a  constitutional  provision  on  every  inch 
of  the  American  republic,  instead  of  being  left,  as  our 
fathers  wisely  left  it,  to  each  State  to  decide  for  itself. 
Here  I  assert  that  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  nor 
desirable.  If  uniformity  had  been  adopted  when  the 
government  was  established,  it  must  inevitably  have 
been  the  uniformity  of  slavery  everywhere,  or  else  the 
uniformity  of  negro  citizenship  and  negro  equality 
everywhere. 

We  are  told  by  Lincoln  that  he  is  utterly  opposed  to 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  will  not  submit  to  it,  for 
the  reason  that  he  says  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship.  That  is  the  first 
and  main  reason  which  he  assigns  for  his  warfare  on  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  its  decision. 
I  ask  you,  are  you  in  favor  of  conferring  upon  the  negro 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship?  Do  you  desire 
to  strike  out  of  our  State  constitution  that  clause  which 
keeps  slaves  and  free  negroes  out  of  the  State,  and 
allow  the  free  negroes  to  flow  in,  and  cover  your  prairies 
with  black  settlements?  Do  you  desire  to  turn  this 
beautiful  State  into  a  free  negro  colony,  in  order  that 
when  Missouri  abolishes  slavery  she  can  send  one 
hundred  thousand  emancipated  slaves  into  Illinois,  to 
become  citizens  and  voters,  on  an  equality  with  your- 
selves? If  you  desire  negro  citizenship,  if  you  desire 
to  allow  them  to  come  into  the  State  and  settle  with  the 
wl;>te  man,  if  you  desire  them  to  vote  on  an  equality 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  137 

with  yourselves,  and  to  make  them  eligible  to  office,  to 
•serve  on  juries,  and  to  adjudge  your  rights,  then  sup- 
port Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Black  Republican  party,  who 
are  in  favor  of  the  citizenship  of  the  negro.  For  one,  I 
am  opposed  to  negro  citizenship  in  any  and  every  form. 
I  believe  this  government  was  made  on  the  white  basis. 
I  believe  it  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  confining  citizenship  to  white  men,  men  of 
European  birth  and  descent,  instead  of  conferring  it 
upon  negroes,  Indians,  and  other  inferior  races. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  following  the  example  and  lead  of  all  the 
little  Abolition  orators  who  go  around  and  lecture  in 
the  basements  of  schools  and  churches,  reads  from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  that  all  men  were  created 
equal,  and  then  asks  how  can  you  deprive  a  negro  of 
that  equality  which  God  and  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence award  to  him?    He  and  they  maintain  that  ne- 
^ro  equality  is  guaranteed  by  the  laws  of  God,  and  that 
it  is  asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.     If 
they  think  so,  of  course  they  have  a  right  to  say  so,  and 
.so  vote.    I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious 
belief  that  the  negro  was  made  his  equal,  and  hence  is 
his  brother;  but  for  my  own  part,  I  do  not  regard  the 
negro  as  my  equal,  and  positively  deny  that  he  is  my 
brother  or  any  kin  to  me  whatever.     Lincoln  has  evi- 
dently  learned   by    heart    Parson    Lovejoy's    catechism. 
He    can    repeat    it   as    well    as    Farnsworth,    and    he    is 
worthy   of   a    medal    from   Father   Giddings    and    Fred 
Douglass  for  his  Abolitionism.     He  holds  that  the  negro 
was  born  his  equal  and  yours,  and  that  he  was  endowed 
with  equality  by  the  Almighty,  and  that  no  human  law 
can  deprive  him  of  these  rights  which  were  guaranteed 
to  him  by  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe.     Now,  I 
<io   not    believe    that   the    Almighty    ever    intended    the 
negro  to  be  the  equal  of  the  white  man.     If  he  did,  he 
has    been    a    long    time    demonstrating    the    fact.     For 
thousands  of  years  the  negro  has  been  a  race  upon  the 
earth,    and    during   all    that   time,    in   all    latitudes    and 
climates,  wherever  he  has  wandered  or  been  taken,  he 
has  been  inferior  to  the  race  which  he  has  there  met. 
He  belongs  to  an  inferior  race,  and  must   always  oc- 
cupy an  inferior  position.     I  do  not  hold  that  because 
the  negro   is   our   inferior  therefore  he  ought  to   be  a 
slave.     By  no  means  can  such  a  conclusion  be  drawn 


138  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

from  what  I  have  said.  On  the  contrary,  I  hold  that 
humanity  and  Christianity  both  require  that  the  negra 
shall  have  and  enjoy  every  right,  every  privilege,  and 
every  im^munity  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society 
in  which  he  lives.  On  that  point,  I  presume,  there  can 
be  no  diversity  of  opinion.  You  and  I  are  bound  to  ex- 
tend to  our  inferior  and  dependent  beings  every  right,, 
every  privilege,  every  facility  and  immunity  consistent 
with  the  public  good.  The  question  then  arises,  what 
rights  and  privileges  are  consistent  with  the  public 
good?  This  is  a  question  which  each  State  and  each 
Territory  must  decide  for  itself — Illinois  has  decided  it 
for  herself.  We  have  provided  that  the  negro  shall  not 
be  a  slave,  and  we  have  also  provided  that  he  shall  not 
be  a  citizen,  but  protect  him  in  his  civil  rights,  in  his 
life,  his  person  and  his  property,  only  depriving  him  of 
all  political  rights  whatsoever,  and  refusing  to  put  him 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  That  policy  of 
Illinois  is  satisfactory  to  the  Democratic  party  and  to 
me,  and  if  it  were  to  the  Republicans,  there  would  then 
be  no  question  upon  the  subject ;  but  the  Republicans 
say  that  he  ought  to  be  made  a  citizen,  and  when  he 
becomes  a  citizen  he  becomes  your  equal,  with  all  your 
rights  and  privileges.  They  assert  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision to  be  monstrous  because  it  denies  that  the  negro 
is  or  can  be  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution. 

Now,  I  hold  that  Illinois  had  a  right  to  abolish  and 
prohibit  slavery  as  she  did,  and  I  hold  that  Kentucky 
has  the  same  right  to  continue  and  protect  slavery  that 
Illinois  had  to  abolish  it.  I  hold  that  New  York  had  as 
much  right  to  abolish  slavery  as  Virginia  has  to  con- 
tinue it,  and  that  each  and  every  State  of  this  Union 
is  a  sovereign  power,  with  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases 
upon  this  question  of  slavery,  and  upon  all  its  domestic 
institutions.  Slavery  is  not  the  only  question  which 
comes  up  in  this  controversy.  There  is  a  far  more 
important  one  to  you,  and  that  is,  what  shall  be  done 
with  the  free  negro?  We  have  settled  the  slavery 
question  as  far  as  we  are  concerned ;  we  have  pro- 
hibited it  in  Illinois  forever,  and  in  doing  so,  I  think  we 
have  done  wisely,  and  there  is  no  man  in  the  State 
who  would  be  more  strenuous  in  his  opposition  to  the 
introduction  of  slavery  than  I  would ;  but  when  we 
settled  it  for  ourselves,  we  exhausted  all  our  power  over 
that  subject.    We  have  done  our  whole  duty,  and  caa 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA 


139 


do  no  more.  We  must  leave  each  and  every  other  State 
to  decide  for  itself  the  same  question.  In  relation  to 
the  policy  to  be  pursued  toward  the  free  negroes,  we 
have  said  that  they  shall  not  vote ;  whilst  Maine,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  said  that  they  shall  vote.  Maine  is  a 
sovereign  State,  and  has  the  power  to  regulate  the 
qualifications  of  voters  within  her  limits.  I  would  never 
consent  to  confer  the  right  of  voting  and  of  citizenship 
upon  a  negro,  but  still  I  am  not  going  to  quarrel  with 
Maine  for  differing  from  me  in  opinion.  Let  Maine 
take  care  of  her  own  negroes,  and  fix  the  qualifications 
of  her  own  voters  to  suit  herself,  without  interfering 
with  Illinois,  and  Illinois  will  not  interfere  with  Maine. 
So  with  the  State  of  New  York.  She  allows  the  negro 
to  vote  provided  he  owns  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars' 
worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise.  While  I  would 
not  make  any  distinction  whatever  between  a  negro  who 
held  property  and  one  who  did  not,  yet  if  the  sovereign 
State  of  New  York  chooses  to  make  that  distinction  it 
is  her  business  and  not  mine,  and  I  will  not  quarrel 
with  her  for  it.  She  can  do  as  she  pleases  on  this 
question  if  she  minds  her  own  business,  and  we  will  do 
the  same  thing.  Now,  my  friends,  if  we  will  only  act 
conscientiously  and  rigidly  upon  this  great  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty,  which  guarantees  to  each  State  and 
Territory  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  on  all  things, 
local  and  domestic,  instead  of  Congress  interfering,  we 
will  continue  at  peace  one  with  another.  Why  should 
Illinois  be  at  war  with  Missouri,  or  Kentucky  with 
Ohio,  or  Virginia  with  New  York,  merely  because  their 
institutions  differ?  Our  fathers  intended  that  our  insti- 
tutions should  differ.  They  knew  that  the  North  and 
the  South,  having  different  climates,  productions,  and 
interests,  required  different  institutions.  This  doctrine 
of  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  uniformity  among  the  institutions  of 
the  different  States,  is  a  new  doctrine,  never  dreamed  of 
by  Washington,  Madison,  or  the  framers  of  this  govern- 
ment. Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Republican  party  set  them- 
selves up  as  wiser  than  these  men  who  made  this  gov- 
ernment, which  has  flourished  for  seventy  years  under 
the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  recognizing  the 
right _  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased.  Under  that 
principle  we  have  grown  from  a  nation  of  three  or  four 
millions  to  a  nation  of  about  thirty  millions  of  people; 
we  have  crossed  the  Allegheny  mountains  and  filled  up 


I40  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

the  whole  Northwest,  turning  the  prairie  into  a  garden, 
and  building  up  churches  and  schools,  thus  spreading 
civilization  and  Christianity  where  before  there  was 
nothing  but  savage  barbarism.  Under  that  principle 
we  have  become,  from  a  feeble  nation,  the  most  powerful 
on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  if  we  only  adhere  to  that 
principle,  we  can  go  forward  increasing  in  territory,  in 
power,  in  strength,  and  in  glory  until  the  Republic  of 
America  shall  be  the  north  star  that  shall  guide  the  friends 
of  freedom  throughout  the  civilized  world.  And  why 
can  we  not  adhere  to  the  great  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment upon  which  our  institutions  were  originally  based? 
I  believe  that  this  new  doctrine  preached  by  Mr.  Lin- 
coln and  his  party  will  dissolve  the  Union  if  it  succeeds. 
They  are  trying  to  array  all  the  Northern  States  in  one 
body  against  the  South,  to  excite  a  sectional  war  be- 
tween the  free  States  and  the  slave  States,  in  order  that 
the  one  or  the  other  may  be  driven  to  the  wall. 

I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out.  Mr.  Lincoln  will  now 
address  you  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  I  will  then 
occupy  a  half  hour  in  replying  to  him. 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply. 

My  Fellow-citizens:  \\'hen  a  man  hears  him- 
self somewhat  misrepresented,  it  provokes  him — 
at  least,  I  find  it  so  with  myself;  but  when  mis- 
representation becomes  very  gross  and  palpable, 
it  is  more  apt  to  amuse  him.  The  first  thing  I  see 
fit  to  notice  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  al- 
leges, after  running  through  the  history  of  the  old 
Democratic  and  the  Old  Whig  parties,  that  Judge 
Trumbull  and  myself  made  an  arrangement  in 
1854,  by  which  I  was  to  have  the  place  of  General 
Shields  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  Judge 
Trumbull  was  to  have  the  place  of  Judge  Doug- 
las. Now  all  I  have  to  say  upon  that  subject  is 
that  I  think  no  man — not  even  Judge  Douglas — 
can  prove  it,  because  it  is  not  true.  I  have  no 
doubt  he  is  ''conscientious"  in  saying  it.     As  to 


1 


i8s8]  AT  OTTAWA  141 

those  resolutions  that  he  took  such  a  length  of 
time  to  read,  as  being  the  platform  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  in  1854,  I  say  I  never  had  anything  to 
do  with  them,  and  I  think  Trumbull  never  had. 
Judge  Douglas  cannot  show  that  either  of  us  ever 
did  have  anything  to  do  with  them.  I  believe 
this  is  true  about  those  resolutions.  There  was 
a  call  for  a  convention  to  form  a  Republican 
party  at  Springfield,  and  I  think  that  my  friend 
Mr.  Love  joy,  who  is  here  upon  this  stand,  had  a 
hand  in  it.  I  think  this  is  true,  and  I  think  if  he 
will  remember  accurately  he  will  be  able  to  recol- 
lect that  he  tried  to  get  me  into. it,  and  I  would 
not  go  in.  I  believe  it  is  also  true  that  I  went 
away  from  Springfield,  when  the  convention  was 
in  session,  to  attend  court  in  Tazewell  County. 
It  is  true  they  did  place  my  name,  though  without 
authority,  upon  the  committee,  and  afterward 
wrote  me  to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  committee, 
but  I  refused  to  do  so,  and  I  never  had  anything 
to  do  with  that  organization.  This  is  the  plain 
truth  about  all  that  matter  of  the  resolutions. 

Now,  about  this  story  that  Judge  Douglas  tells 
of  Trumbull  bargaining  to  sell  out  the  old  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  Lincoln  agreeing  to  sell  out  the 
Old  Whig  party,  I  have  the  means  of  knowing 
about  that ;  Judge  Douglas  cannot  have ;  and  I 
know  there  is  no  substance  to  it  whatever.  Yet 
I  have  no  doubt  he  is  ''conscientious"  about  it. 
I  know  that  after  Mr.  Love  joy  got  into  the  legis- 
lature that  winter,  he  complained  of  me  that  I 
had  told  all  the  Old  Whigs  of  his  district  that  the 
Old  Whig  party  was  good  enough  for  them,  and 
some  of  them  voted  against  him  because  I  told 
them  so.  Now,  I  have  no  means  of  totally  dis- 
proving such  charges  as  this  which  the  judge 


142  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

makes.  A  man  cannot  prove  a  negative,  but  he 
has  a  right  to  claim  that  when  a  man  makes  an 
affirmative  charge,  he  must  offer  some  proof  to 
show  the  truth  of  what  he  says.  I  certainly 
cannot  introduce  testimony  to  show  the  negative 
about  things,  but  I  have  a  right  to  claim  that  if 
a  man  says  he  knows  a  thing,  then  he  must  show 
how  he  knows  it.  I  always  have  a  right  to  claim 
this,  and  it  is  not  satisfactory  to  me  that  he  may 
be  ''conscientious"  on  the  subject. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  hate  to  waste  my  time  on 
such  things,  but  in  regard  to  that  general  Abo- 
lition tilt  that  Judge  Douglas  makes,  when  he 
says  that  I  was  engaged  at  that  time  in  selling  out 
and  Abolitionizing  the  Old  Whig  party,  I  hope 
you  will  permit  me  to  read  a  part  of  a  printed 
speech  that  I  made  then  at  Peoria,  which  will 
show  altogether  a  different  view  of  the  position 
I  took  in  that  contest  of  1854.  [Voice:  ''Put  on 
your  specs."]  Yes,  sir,  I  am  obliged  to  do  so. 
I  am  no  longer  a  young  man. 

This  is  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The 
foregoing  history  may  not  be  precisely  accurate  in 
every  particular;  but  I  am  sure  it  is  sufficiently  so  for 
all  the  uses  1  shall  attempt  to  make  of  it,  and  in  it  we 
have  before  us  the  chief  materials  enabling  us  to  cor- 
rectly judge  whether  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise is  right  or  wrong. 

I  think,  and  shall  try  to  show,  that  it  is  wrong; 
wrong  in  its  direct  effect,  letting  slavery  into  Kansas 
and  Nebraska — and  wrong  in  its  prospective  principles, 
allowing  it  to  spread  to  every  other  part  of  the  wide 
world  where  men  can  be  found  inclined  to  take  it. 

This  declared  indifference,  but,  as  I  must  think, 
covert  real  zeal  for  the  spread  of  slavery,  I  cannot  but 
hate.  I  hate  it  because  of  the  monstrous  injustice  of 
slavery  itself.  I  hate  it  because  it  deprives  our 
republican  example  of  its  just  influence  in  the  world; 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA 


143 


enables  the  enemies  of  free  institutions,  with  plausibil- 
ity, to  taunt  us  as  hypocrites;  causes  the  real  friends 
of  freedom  to  doubt  our  sincerity,  and  especially  be- 
cause it  forces  so  many  reall}-  good  men  amongst  our- 
selves into  an  open  war  with  the  very  fundamental 
principles  of  civil  liberty — criticising  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  insisting  that  there  is  no  right 
principle  of  action  but  self-interest. 

Before  proceeding,  let  me  say  I  think  I  have  no 
prejudice  against  the  Southern  people.  They  are  just 
what  we  would  be  in  their  situation.  If  slavery  did 
not  now  exist  among  them,  they  would  not  introduce 
it.  If  it  did  now  exist  among  us,  we  should  not  in- 
stantly give  it  up.  This  I  believe  of  the  masses  North 
and  South.  Doubtless  there  are  individuals  on  both 
sides  who  would  not  hold  slaves  under  any  circum- 
stances: and  others  who  would  gladly  introduce 
slavery  anew,  if  it  were  out  of  existence.  We  know 
that  some  Southern  men  do  free  their  slaves,  go 
North,  and  become  tip-top  Abolitionists;  while  some 
Northern  ones  go  South,  and  become  most  cruel  slave- 
masters. 

When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more 
responsible  for  the  origin  of  slavery  than  we.  I  ac- 
knowledge the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institu- 
tion exists,  and  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it 
any  satisfactory  way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate 
the  saying.  I  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing 
what  I  should  not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all 
earthly  power  were  given  me,  I  should  not  know  what 
to  do  as  to  the  existing  institution.  ]\Iy  first  impulse 
would  be  to  free  all  the  slaves,  and  send  them  to 
Liberia — to  their  own  native  land.  But  a  moment's 
reflection  would  convince  me  that  whatever  of  high 
hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there  may  be  in  this  in  the 
long  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible.  If  they 
were  all  landed  there  in  a  da}^  they  would  all  perish 
in  the  next  ten  days;  and  there  are  not  surplus  shipping 
and  surplus  money  enough  in  the  world  to  carry  them 
there  in  many  times  ten  days.  What  then?  Free 
them  all,  and  keep  them  among  us  as  underlings?  Is 
it  quite  certain  that  this  betters  their  condition?  I 
think  I  would  not  hold  one  in  slavery  at  any  rate;  yet 
the  point  is  not  clear  enough  to  me  to  denounce  people 
upon.     What  next?     Free  them,  and  make  them  politi- 


144  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       tAug.  21 

cally  and  socially  our  equals?  My  own  feelings  will 
not  admit  of  this;  and  if  mine  would,  we  well  know 
that  those  of  the  great  mass  of  white  people  will  not. 
Whether  this  feeling  accords  with  justice  and  sound 
judgment  is  not  the  sole  question,  if,  indeed,  it  is  any 
part  of  it.  A  universal  feeling,  whether  well  or  ill- 
founded,  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We  cannot 
make  them  equals.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  systems 
of  gradual  emancipation  might  be  adopted;  but  for 
their  tardiness  in  this,  I  will  not  undertake  to  judge 
our  brethren  of  the  South. 

When  they  remind  us  of  their  constitutional  rights, 
I  acknowledge  them,  not  grudgingly,  ^  but^  fully  and 
fairly;  and  I  would  give  them  any  legislation  for  the 
reclaiming  of  their  fugitives  which  should  not,  in  its 
stringency,  be  more  likely  to  carry  a  free  man  into 
slavery  than  our  ordinary  criminal  laws  are  to  hang  an 
innocent  one. 

But  all  this,  to  my  judgment,  furnishes  no  more 
excuse  for  permitting  slavery  to  go  into  our  own  free 
territory  than  it  would  for  reviving  the  African  slave- 
trade  by  law.  The  law  which  forbids  the  bringing  of 
slaves  from  Africa,  and  that  which  has  so  long  for- 
bidden the  taking  of  them  to  Nebraska,  can  hardly  be 
distinguished  on  any  moral  principle;  and  the  repeal 
of  the  former  could  find  quite  as  plausible  excuses  as 
that  of  the  latter. 


I  have  reason  to  know  that  Judge  Douglas 
knows  that  I  said  this.  I  think  he  has  the  answer 
here  to  one  of  the  questions  he  put  to  me.  I  do 
not  mean  to  allow  him  to  catechize  me  unless  he 
pays  back  for  it  in  kind.  I  will  not  answer  ques- 
tions one  after  another,  unless  he  reciprocates ; 
but  as  he  has  made  this  inquiry,  and  I  have  an- 
swered it  before,  he  has  got  it  without  my  getting 
anything  in  return.  He  has  got  my  answer  on 
the  fugitive-slave  law. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any 
great  length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of 
all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  ■  145 

of  slavery  and  the  black  race.  This  is  the  whole 
of  it,  and  anything  that  argues  me  into  his  idea 
of  perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the 
negro  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic  arrange- 
ment of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a 
horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say 
here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  pur- 
pose, either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  v/here 
it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do 
so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have 
no  purpose  to  introduce  political  and  social  equal- 
ity between  the  white  and  the  black  races.  There 
is  a  physical  difference  between  the  two,  which, 
in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever  forbid 
their  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect 
equality ;  and  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity 
that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as 
Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which 
I  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have 
never  said  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold 
that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is  no  reason 
in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all 
the  natural  rights  enumerated  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence — the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as 
much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree 
with  Judge  Douglas  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many 
respects — certainly  not  in  color,  perhaps  not  in 
moral  or  intellectual  endowment.  But  in  the 
right  to  eat  the  bread,  without  the  leave  of  any- 
body else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my 
equal  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the 
equal  of  every  living  man. 

Now  I  pass  on  to  consider  one  or  two  more  of 
these  little  follies.    The  judge  is  woefulfy  at  fault 


146  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

about  his  early  friend  Lincoln  being  a  "grocery- 
keeper."'^  I  don't  know  that  it  would  be  a  great 
sin  if  I  had  been :  but  he  is  mistaken.  Lincoln 
never  kept  a  grocery  anywhere  in  the  world.  It 
is  true  that  Lincoln  did  work  the  latter  part  of 
one  winter  in  a  little  still-house  up  at  the  head 
of  a  hollow.  And  so  I  think  my  friend,  the  judge, 
is  equally  at  fault  when  he  charges  me  at  the 
time  when  I  was  in  Congress  with  having  opposed 
our  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  [Mexican 
War.  The  judge  did  not  make  his  charge  very 
distinctly,  but  I  tell  you  what  he  can  prove,  by 
referring  to  the  record.  You  remember  I  was  an 
Old  Whig,  and  whenever  the  Democratic  party 
tried  to  get  me  to  vote  that  the  war  had  been 
righteously  begun  by  the  President,  I  would  not 
do  it.  But  whenever  they  asked  for  any  money, 
or  land-warrants,  or  an\thing  to  pay  the  soldiers 
there,  during  all  that  time,  I  gave  the  same  vote 
that  Judge  Douglas  did.  You  can  think  as  you 
please  as  to  whether  that  was  consistent.  Such 
is  the  truth ;  and  the  judge  has  the  right  to  make 
all  he  can  out  of  it.  But  when  he.  by  a  general 
charge,  conveys  the  idea  that  I  withheld  supplies 
from  the  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  ^lexi- 
can  War,  or  did  an\'thing  else  to  hinder  the 
soldiers,  he  is,  to  say  the  least,  grossly  and  alto- 
gether mistaken,  as  a  consultation  of  the  records 
will  prove  to  him. 

As  I  have  not  used  up  so  much  of  my  time  as 
I  had  supposed,  I  will  dwell  a  little  longer  upon 
one  or  two  of  these  minor  topics  upon  which  the 
judge  has  spoken.  He  has  read  from  my  speech 
in  Springfield  in  which  I  say  that  ''a  house  di- 
vided   against   itself    cannot    stand."     Does    the 

*  A  term  that  then  was  equivalent  to  liquor-seller. 


185S]  AT  OTTAWA  147 

ludsre  sav  it  can  stand  ?  I  don't  know  whether  he 
does  or  not.  The  judge  does  not  seem  to  be  at- 
tending to  me  just  now,  but  I  would  like  to  know 
if  it  is  his  opinion  that  a  house  divided  against 
itself  can  stand.  If  he  does,  then  there  is  a  ques- 
tion of  veracit}-,  not  betv.een  him  and  m.e,  but 
between  the  judge  and  an  authorit}-  of  a  some- 
what higher  character. 

Xow,  my  friends,  I  ask  your  attrr::  jn  to  this 
matter  for  the  purpose  of  5a}Tng  s:  ::>ing  seri- 
ously. I  know  that  the  judge  may  r r :.  i.\y  enough 
agree  with  m>e  that  the  maxim  which  was  put 
forth  by  the  Saviour  is  true,  but  he  may  allege 
that  I  misapply  it;  and  the  judge  has  a  right  to 
urge  that  in  my  appHcation  I  do  misapply  it, 
and  then  I  have  a  right  to  show  that  I  do  not  mis- 
apply it.  When  he  undertakes  to  say  that  be- 
cause I  think  this  nation,  so  far  as  the  question 
of  slavers*  is  concerned,  will  all  become  one  thing 
or  all  the  other.  I  am  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
a  dead  uniformit}-  in  the  various  States  in  all 
their  institutions,  he  argues  erroneously.  The 
great  variety  of  the  local  institutions  in  the 
States,  springing  from  differences  in  the  soil,  dif- 
ferences in  the  face  cf  the  cotmtr\-,  and  in  the 
climate,  are  bonds  of  union.  They  do  not  make 
*'a  house  divided  against  itself,"  but  they  make  a 
house  united.  If  they  produce  in  one  section  of 
the  country-  what  is  called  for  by  the  wants  of 
another  section,  and  this  other  section  can  supply 
the  wants  of  t::e  f.rst,  they  are  not  matters 
of  discord  but  bends  of  union,  true  bonds 
of  union.  But  can  this  question  of  slavery 
be  considered  as  among  these  varieties  in 
the  institutions  of  the  cotrntrv?  I  leave  it 
to    you    to    say    whether,    in    the    histor)*    of 


148  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

our  government,  this  institution  of  slavery  has 
not  always  failed  to  be  a  bond  of  union,  and,  on 
the  contrary,  been  an  apple  of  discord  and  an 
element  of  division  in  the  house.  I  ask  you  to 
consider  whether,  so  long  as  the  moral  constitu- 
tion of  men's  minds  shall  continue  to  be  the  same, 
after  this  generation  and  assemblage  shall  sink 
into  the  grave,  and  another  race  shall  arise  with 
the  same  moral  and  intellectual  development  we 
have — whether,  if  that  institution  is  standing  in 
the  same  irritating  position  in  which  it  now  is, 
it  will  not  continue  an  element  of  division? 

If  so,  then  I  have  a  right  to  say  that,  in  regard 
to  this  question,  the  Union  is  a  house  divided 
against  itself;  and  when  the  judge  reminds  me 
that  I  have  often  said  to  him  that  the  institution 
of  slavery  has  existed  for  eighty  years  in  some 
States,  and  yet  it  does  not  exist  in  some  others, 
I  agree  to  the  fact,  and  I  account  for  it  by  look- 
ing at  the  position  in  which  our  fathers  originally 
placed  it — restricting  it  from  the  new  Territories 
where  it  had  not  gone,  and  legislating  to  cut  off 
its  source  by  the  abrogation  of  the  slave-trade, 
thus  putting  the  seal  of  legislation  against  its 
spread.  The  public  mind  did  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
But  lately,  I  think — and  in  this  I  charge  nothing 
on  the  judge's  motives — lately,  I  think,  that  he, 
and  those  acting  w^ith  him,  have  placed  that  in- 
stitution on  a  new  basis,  which  looks  to  the  per- 
petuity and  nationalization  of  slavery.  And 
while  it  is  placed  upon  this  new  basis,  I  say,  and 
I  have  said,  that  I  believe  we  shall  not  have  peace 
upon  the  question  until  the  opponents  of  slavery 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where 
the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  I49 

in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  its  advocates  will  push  it  for- 
ward until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as  South. 
Now  I  believe  if  we  could  arrest  the  spread,  and 
place  it  where  Washington  and  Jefferson  and 
Madison  placed  it,  it  would  be  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  and  the  public  mind  would, 
as  for  eighty  years  past,  believe  that  it  was  in 
the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  The  crisis 
would  be  past,  and  the  institution  might  be  let 
alone  for  a  hundred  years — if  it  should  live  so 
long — in  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  it  would 
be  going  out  of  existence  in  the  way  best  for  both 
the  black  and  the  white  races.  [A  voice:  "Then 
do  you  repudiate  popular  sovereignty  f'']  Well, 
then,  let  us  talk  about  popular  sovereignty ! 
What  is  popular  sovereignty?  Is  it  the  right  of 
the  people  to  have  slavery  or  not  have  it,  as  they 
see  fit,  in  the  Territories?  I  will  state — and  I 
have  an  able  man  to  watch  me — my  understand- 
ing is  that  popular  sovereignty,  as  now  applied 
to  the  question  of  slavery,  does  allow  the  people 
of  a  Territory  to  have  slavery  if  they  want  to, 
but  does  not  allow  them  not  to  have  it  if  they  do 
not  want  it.  I  do  not  mean  that  if  this  vast  con- 
course of  people  were  in  a  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  any  one  of  them  would  be  obliged  to  have 
a  slave  if  he  did  not  want  one ;  but  I  do  say  that, 
as  I  understand  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  if  any 
one  man  wants  slaves,  all  the  rest  have  no  way 
of  keeping  that  one  man  from  holding  them. 

When  I  made  my  speech  at  Springfield,  of 
which  the  judge  complains,  and  from  which  he 
quotes,  I  really  was  not  thinking  of  the  things 
which  he  ascribes  to  me  at  all.    I  had  no  thought 


I50  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

in  the  world  that  I  was  doing  anything  to  bring 
about  a  war  between  the  free  and  slave  States. 
I  had  no  thought  in  the  world  that  I  was  doing 
anything  to  bring  about  a  political  and  social 
equality  of  the  black  and  white  races.  It 
never  occurred  to  me  that  I  was  doing 
anything  or  favoring  anything  to  reduce  to  a 
dead  uniformity  all  the  local  institutions  of  the 
various  States.  But  I  must  say,  in  all  fairness  to 
him,  if  he  thinks  I  am  doing  something  which 
leads  to  these  bad  results,  it  is  none  the  better 
that  I  did  not  mean  it.  It  is  just  as  fatal  to  the 
country,  if  I  have  any  influence  in  producing  it, 
whether  I  intend  it  or  not.  But  can  it  be  true, 
that  placing  this  institution  upon  the  original  basis 
— the  basis  upon  which  our  fathers  placed  it — can 
have  any  tendency  to  set  the  Northern  and  the 
Southern  States  at  war  with  one  another,  or  that 
it  can  have  any  tendency  to  make  the  people  of 
Vermont  raise  sugar-cane  because  they  raise  it  in 
Louisiana,  or  that  it  can  compel  the  people  of 
Illinois  to  cut  pine  logs  on  the  Grand  Prairie,* 
where  they  will  not  grow,  because  they  cut  pine 
logs  in  Maine,  where  they  do  grow?  The  judge 
says  this  is  a  new  principle  started  in  regard  to 
this  question.  Does  the  judge  claim  that  he  is 
working  on  the  plan  of  the  founders  of  the  gov- 
ernment ?  I  think  he  says  in  some  of  his  speeches 
— indeed,  I  have  one  here  now — that  he  saw  evi- 
dence of  a  policy  to  allow  slavery  to  be  south  of 
a  certain  line,  while  north  of  it  it  should  be  ex- 
cluded, and  he  saw  an  indisposition  on  the  part 
of  the  country  to  stand  upon  that  policy,  and 
therefore  he  set  about  studying  the  subject  upon 
original  principles,  and  upon  original  principles 
he  got  up  the  Nebraska  bill !     I  am  fighting  it 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA 


151 


upon  these  "original  principles" — fighting  it  in 
the  Jeffersonian,  Washingtonian,  and  Madisoni- 
an  fashion. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  wish  you  to  attend  for  a 
little  Vv^hile  to  one  or  two  other  things  in  that 
Springfield  speech.  My  main  object  was  to  show, 
so  far  as  my  humble  ability  was  capable  of  show- 
ing to  the  people  of  this  country,  what  I  believed 
was  the  truth — that  there  was  a  tendency,  if  not  a 
conspiracy,  among  those  who  have  engineered 
this  slavery  question  for  the  last  four  or  five 
years,  to  make  slavery  perpetual  and  universal  in 
this  nation.  Having  made  that  speech  principally 
for  that  object,  after  arranging  the  evidences  that 
I  thought  tended  to  prove  my  proposition,  I  con- 
cluded with  this  bit  of  comment : 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  these  exact  adapta- 
tions are  the  result  of  pre-concert,  but  when  we  see  a 
lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we 
,  know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and 
places,  and  by  different  workmen — Stephen,  Franklin, 
Roger,  and  James,  for  instance;  and  when  we  see  these 
timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make  the 
frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons  and  mortises 
exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of 
the  different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective 
places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few, — not 
omitting  even  the  scaffolding, — or  if  a  single  piece  be 
lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted 
and  prepared  to  yet  bring  such  piece  in — in  such  a  case 
we  feel  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and 
Franklin,  and  Roger  and  James,  all  understood  one 
another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a 
common  plan  or  draft  drawn  before  the  first  blow  was 
struck. 

When  my  friend.  Judge  Douglas,  came  to  Chi- 
cago on  the  9th  of  July,  this  speech  having  been 
delivered    on   the    i6th    of   June,   he    made   an 


152 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 


harangue  there  in  which  he  took  hold  of  this 
speech  of  mine,  showing  that  he  had  carefully 
read  it;  and  while  he  paid  no  attention  to  this 
matter  at  all,  but  complimented  me  as  being  a 
*'kind,  amiable,  and  intelligent  gentleman,"  not- 
withstanding I  had  said  this,  he  goes  on  and  de- 
duces, or  draws  out,  from  my  speech  this  tend- 
ency of  mine  to  set  the  States  at  war  with  one 
another,  to  make  all  the  institutions  uniform,  and 
set  the  niggers  and  white  people  to  marry  to- 
gether. Then,  as  the  judge  had  complimented 
me  with  these  pleasant  titles  (I  must  confess  to 
my  weakness),  I  was  a  little  "taken,"  for  it  came 
from  a  great  man.  I  was  not  very  much  accus- 
tomed to  flattery,  and  it  came  the  sweeter  to  me. 
I  was  rather  like  the  Hoosier  with  the  ginger- 
bread, when  he  said  he  reckoned  he  loved  it  bet- 
ter than  any  other  man,  and  got  less  of  it.  As 
the  judge  had  so  flattered  me,  I  could  not  make 
up  my  mind  that  he  meant  to  deal  imfairly 
with  me ;  so  I  went  to  work  to  show 
him  that  he  misunderstood  the  whole  scope 
of  my  speech,  and  that  I  never  really  in- 
tended to  set  the  people  at  war  with  one  another. 
As  an  illustration,  the  next  time  I  met  him,  which 
was  at  Springfield,  I  used  this  expression,  that  I 
claimed  no  right  under  the  Constitution,  nor  had 
I  any  inclination,  to  enter  into  the  slave  States 
and  interfere  with  the  institutions  of  slavery.  He 
says  upon  that :  Lincoln  will  not  enter  into  the 
slave  States,  but  will  go  to  the  banks  of  the  Ohio, 
on  this  side,  and  shoot  over !  He  runs  on,  step  by 
step,  in  the  horse-chestnut  style  of  argument,  un- 
til in  the  Springfield  speech  he  says,  "Unless  he 
shall  be  successful  in  firing  his  batteries,  until  he 
shall  have  extinguished  slavery  in  all  the  States, 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  153 

the  Union  shall  be  dissolved."  Now  I  don't 
think  that  was  exactly  the  way  to  treat  "a.  kind, 
amiable,  intelligent  gentleman."  I  know  if  I  had 
asked  the  judge  to  show  when  or  where  it  was  I 
had  said  that  if  I  didn't  succeed  in  firing  into 
the  slave  States  until  slavery  should  be  extin- 
guished, the  Union  should  be  dissolved,  he  could 
not  have  shown  it.  I  understand  what  he  would 
do.  He  vvould  sa}^  ''I  don't  mean  to  quote  from 
you,  but  this  was  the  result  of  what  you  say." 
But  I  have  the  right  to  ask,  and  I  do  ask  now, 
did  you  not  put  it  in  such  a  form  that  an  ordinary 
reader  or  listener  would  take  it  as  an  expression 
from  me? 

In  a  speech  at  Springfield  on  the  night  of  the 
17th,  I  thought  I  might  as  well  attend  to  my  busi- 
ness a  little,  and  I  recalled  his  attention  as  well  as 
I  could  to  this  charge  of  conspiracy  to  nationalize 
slavery.  I  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he 
had  acknowledged  in  my  hearing  twice  that  he 
had  carefully  read  the  speech ;  and,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  lawyers,  as  he  had  twice  read  the 
speech,  and  still  had  put  in  no  plea  or  answer,  I 
took  a  default  on  him.  I  insisted  that  I  had  a 
right  then  to  renew  that  charge  of  conspiracy. 
Ten  days  afterward  I  met  the  judge  at  Clinton — 
that  is  to  say,  I  was  on  the  ground,  but  not  in  the 
discussion — and  heard  him  make  a  speech.  Then 
he  comes  in  with  his  plea  to  this  charge,  for  the 
first  time,  and  his  plea  when  put  in,  as  well  as 
I  can  recollect  it,  amounted  to  this :  that  he  never 
had  any  talk  with  Judge  Taney  or  the  President 
of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  before  it  was  made.  I  ought  to 
know  that  the  man  who  makes  a  charge  without 
knowing  it  to  be  true  falsifies  as  much  as  he  who 


154  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

knowingly  tells  a  falsehood ;  and  lastly,  that  he 
would  pronounce  the  whole  thing  a  falsehood; 
but  he  would  make  no  personal  application  of 
the  charge  of  falsehood,  not  because  of  any  re- 
gard for  the  ''kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentle- 
man," but  because  of  his  own  personal  self- 
respect  !  I  have  imderstood  since  then  (but 
[turning  to  Judge  Douglas]  will  not  hold  the 
judge  to  it  if  he  is  not  willing)  that  he  has  broken 
through  the  ''self-respect,"  and  has  got  to  saying 
the  thing  out.  The  judge  nods  to  me  that  it  is  so. 
It  is  fortunate  for  me  that  I  can  keep  as  good- 
humored  as  I  do  when  the  judge  acknowledges 
that  he  has  been  trying  to  make  a  question  of 
veracity  with  me.  I  know  the  judge  is  a  great 
man,  while  I  am  only  a  small  man,  but  I  feel  that 
I  have  got  him.  I  demur  to  that  plea.  I  waive 
all  objections  that  it  was  not  filed  till  after  default 
was  taken,  and  demur  to  it  upon  the  merits. 
What  if  Judge  Douglas  never  did  talk  with  Chief 
Justice  Taney  and  the  President  before  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  was  m^de ;  does  it  follow  that  he 
could  not  have  had  as  perfect  an  understanding 
without  talking  as  with  it  ?  I  am  not  disposed  to 
stand  upon  my  legal  advantage.  I  am  disposed 
to  take  his  denial  as  being  like  an  answer  in 
chancery,  and  he  neither  had  any  knowledge,  in- 
formation, nor  belief  in  the  existence  of  such  a 
conspiracy.  I  am  disposed  to  take  his  answer 
as  being  as  broad  as  though  he  had  put  it  in  these 
words.  And  now,  I  ask,  even  if  he  had  done  so, 
have  not  I  a  right  to  prove  it  on  him,  and  to  offer 
the  evidence  of  more  than  two  witnesses,  by 
whom  to  prove  it ;  and  if  the  evidence  proves  the 
existence  of  the  conspiracy,  does  his  broad  an- 
swer, denying  all  knowledge,  information,  or  be- 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  155 

lief,  disturb  the  fact?  It  can  only  show  that  he 
was  used  by  conspirators,  and  was  not  a  leader  of 
them. 

Now,  in  regard  to  his  reminding  me  of  the 
moral  rule  that  persons  who  tell  what  they  do  not 
know  to  be  true  falsify  as  much  as  those  who 
knowingly  tell  falsehoods.  I  remember  the  rule, 
and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  what  I  have 
read  to  you  I  do  not  say  that  I  know  such  a  con- 
spiracy to  exist.  To  that  I  reply,  I  believe  it.  If 
the  judge  says  that  I  do  not  believe  it,  then  he 
savs  what  he  does  not  know,  and  falls  within  his 
own  rule  that  he  who  asserts  a  thing  which  he 
does  not  know  to  be  true  falsifies  as  much  as  he 
who  knowingly  tells  a  falsehood.  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  a  little  discussion  on  that  branch 
of  the  case,  and  the  evidence  which  brought  my 
mind  to  the  conclusion  which  I  expressed  as  my 
belief.  If,  in  arraying  that  evidence,  I  had  stated 
anything  which  was  false  or  erroneous,  it  needed 
but  that  Judge  Douglas  should  point  it  out,  and 
I  would  have  taken  it  back  with  all  the  kindness 
in  the  world.  I  do  not  deal  in  that  way.  If  I 
have  brought  forward  anything  not  a  fact,  if  he 
will  point  it  out,  it  will  not  even  ruffle  me  to  take 
it  back.  But  if  he  will  not  point  out  anything  er- 
roneous in  the  evidence,  is  it  not  rather  for  him 
to  show  by  a  comparison  of  the  evidence  that  I 
have  reasoned  falsely  than  to  call  the  "kind, 
amiable,  intelligent  gentleman"  a  liar?  If  I  have 
reasoned  to  a  false  conclusion,  it  is  the  vocation  of 
an  able  debater  to  show  by  argument  that  I  have 
wandered  to  an  erroneous  conclusion.  I  want  to 
ask  your  attention  to  a  portion  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  which  Judge  Douglas  has  quoted :  'Tt  being 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act,  not  to 


156  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  21 

legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor 
to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 
Thereupon  Judge  Douglas  and  others  began  to 
argue  in  favor  of  ''popular  sovereignty" — the 
right  of  the  people  to  have  slaves  if  they  wanted 
them,  and  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  did  not  want 
them.  "But,"  said,  in  substance,  a  senator  from 
Ohio  (Mr.  Chase,  I  beHeve),  'Sve  more  than 
suspect  that  you  do  not  mean  to  allow 
the  people  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  wish 
to;  and  if  you  do  mean  it,  accept  an 
amendment  which  I  propose  expressly  au- 
thorizing the  people  to  exclude  slavery."  I 
believe  I  have  the  amendmient  here  before  me, 
which  was  offered,  and  under  which  the  people 
of  the  Territory,  through  their  proper  rep- 
resentatives, might,  if  they  saw  fit,  prohibit  the 
existence  of  slavery  therein.  And  now  I  state 
it  as  a  fact,  to  be  taken  back  if  there  is  any  mis- 
take about  it,  that  Judge  Douglas  and  those  act- 
ing with  him  voted  that  amendment  down.  I  now 
think  that  those  men  who  voted  it  down  had  a  real 
reason  for  doing  so.  They  know  what  that  rea- 
son was.  It  looks  to  us,  since  we  have  seen  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  pronounced,  holding  that, 
''under  the  Constitution,"  the  people  cannot  ex- 
clude slavery — I  say  it  looks  to  outsiders,  poor, 
simple,  "amiable,  intelligent  gentlemen,"  as 
though  the  niche  was  left  as  a  place  to  put  that 
Dred  Scott  decision  in,  a  niche  which  would  have 
been  spoiled  by  adopting  the  amendment.  And 
now  I  say  again,  if  this  was  not  the  reason,  it  will 
avail  the  judge  much  more  to  calmly  and  good- 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  157 

hiimoredly  point  out  to  these  people  what  that 
other  reason  was  for  voting  the  amendment  down 
than  swelhng  himself  up  to  vociferate  that  he 
may  be  provoked  to  call  somebody  a  liar. 

Again  :  there  is  in  that  same  quotation  from  the 
Nebraska  bill  this  clause :  ''It  being  the  true  in- 
tent and  meaning  of  this  bill  not  to  legislate  slav- 
ery into  any  Territory  or  State."  I  have  always 
been  puzzled  to  know  what  business  the  word 
"State"  had  in  that  connection.  Judge  Douglas 
knows.  He  put  it  there.  He  knows  what  he  put 
it  there  for.  We  outsiders  cannot  say  what  he 
put  it  there  for.  The  law  they  were  passing  was 
not  about  States,  and  was  not  making  provision 
for  States.  What  was  it  placed  there  for?  After 
seeing  the  Dred  Scott  decision  which  holds  that 
the  people  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  a  Terri- 
tory, if  another  Dred  Scott  decision  shall  come, 
holding  that  they  cannot  exclude  it  from  a  State, 
we  shall  discover  that  when  the  word  was  origi- 
nally put  there,  it  was  in  view  of  something  which 
was  to  come  in  due  time,  we  shall  see  that  it  was 
the  other  half  of  something.  I  now  say  again,  if 
there  is  any  dififerent  reason  for  putting  it  there, 
Judge  Douglas,  in  a  good-humored  way,  without 
calling  anybody  a  liar,  can  tell  what  the  reason 
was. 

When  the  judge  spoke  at  Clinton,  he  came  very 
near  making  a  charge  of  falsehood  against  me. 
He  used,  as  I  found  it  printed  in  a  newspaper, 
which,  I  remember  was  very  nearly  like  the  real 
speech,  the  following  language : 

I  did  not  answer  the  charge  [of  conspiracy]  before 
for  the  reason  that  I  did  not  suppose  there  was  a  man 
in  America  with  a  heart  so  corrupt  as  to  beheve  such 
a  charge  could  be  true.     I  have  too  much  respect  for 


158  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

Mr.   Lincoln  to  suppose  he  is  serious  in  making  the 
charge. 

I  confess  this  is  rather  a  curious  view,  that  out 
of  respect  for  me  he  should  consider  I  was  mak- 
ing what  I  deemed  rather  a  grave  charge  in  fun. 
I  confess  it  strikes  me  rather  strangely.  But  I 
let  it  pass.  As  the  judge  did  not  for  a  moment 
believe  that  there  was  a  man  in  America  whose 
heart  was  so  "corrupt"  as  to  make  such  a  charge, 
and  as  he  places  me  among  the  "men  in  America" 
who  have  hearts  base  enough  to  make  such  a 
charge,  I  hope  he  will  excuse  me  if  I  hunt  out 
another  charge  very  like  this ;  and  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  in  hunting  I  should  find  that  other, 
and  it  should  turn  out  to  be  Judge  Douglas  him- 
self who  made  it,  I  hope  he  will  reconsider  this 
question  of  the  deep  corruption  of  heart  he  has 
thought  fit  to  ascribe  to  me.  In  Judge  Douglas's 
speech  of  March  22,  1858,  which  I  hold  in  my 
hand,  he  says : 

In  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I 
desire  to  allude.  I  seldom  refer  to  the  course  of  news- 
papers, or  notice  the  articles  which  they  publish  in 
regard  to  myself;  but  the  course  of  the  Washington 
Union  has  been  so  extraordinary  for  the  last  two  or 
three  m.onths  that  I  think  it  well  enough  to  make  some 
allusion  to  it.  It  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic 
party  every  other  day,  at  least  for  two  or  three  months, 
and  keeps  reading  me  out,  and,  as  if  it  had  not 
succeeded,  still  continues  to  read  me  out,  using  such 
terms  as  "traitor,"  "renegade,"  "deserter,"  and  other 
kind  and  polite  epithets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  no 
vindication  to  make  of  my  Democracy  against  the 
Washington  Union,  or  any  other  newspaper — I  am  will- 
ing to  allow  my  history  and  actions  for  the  last  twenty 
years  to  speak  for  themselves  as  to  my  political  princi- 
ples, and  my  fidelity  to  political  obligations.  The 
Washington  Union  has  a  personal  grievance.  When 
the  editor  was  nominated  for  public  printer  I  declined 


i8s8]  AT  OTTAWA 


159 


to  vote  for  him,  and  stated  that  at  some  time  I  might 
give  my  reasons  for  doing  so.  Since  I  declined  to 
give  that  vote,  this  scurrilous  abuse,  these  vindictive 
and  constant  attacks,  have  been  repeated  almost  daily 
on  me.  Will  my  friend  from  Michigan  read  the  article 
to  which  I  allude? 

This  is  a  part  of  the  speech.  Ycu  must  excuse 
me  from  reading  the  entire  article  of  the  Wash- 
ington  Union,  as  Mr.  Stuart  read  it  for  Mr. 
Douglas.  The  judge  goes  on  and  sums  up,  as  I 
think,  correctly : 

Mr,  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  proposi- 
tions advanced  boldly  by  the  Washington  Union  editori- 
ally and  apparently  authoritatively,  and  any  man  who 
questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist, 
a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The  propositions  are,  first,  that 
the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original 
institution  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property; 
second,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  de- 
clares that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  States;  and  that,  therefore,  thirdly,  all  State 
laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the 
citizens  of  one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their 
slave  property,  and  especially  declaring  it  forfeited,  are 
direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  the  govern- 
ment and  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and,  fourth 
that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  Northern 
States  was  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of 
the  owner. 

Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the 
Union  on  the  17th  of  November,  and  on  the  i8th  ap- 
peared the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the 
Union  to  the  Lecompton  constitution.  It  was  in  these 
words: 

"Kansas  and  her  Constitution.  The  vexed  ques- 
tion is  settled.  The  problem  is  solved.  The  dead 
point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to 
Kansas  affairs  is  over  and  gone." 

And  a  column  nearly  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when 
you  come  to  look  into  the  Lecompton  constitution,  you 


i6o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  21 

find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which  was 
put  forth  editorially  in  the  Union.     What  is  it? 

"Article  7,  Section  i.  The  right  of  property  is  before 
and  higher  than  any  constitutional  sanction;  and  the 
right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its  in- 
crease is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the 
owner  of  any  property  whatever." 

Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  constitu- 
tion may  be  amended  after  1864  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

"But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right 
of  property  in  the  ownership  of  slaves." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  L'^.compton 
constitution  that  they  are  identical  in  spirit  with  the 
authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  Union  of  the 
day  previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  constitution. 

I  pass  over  some  portions  of  the  speech,  and  I 
hope  that  any  one  who  feels  interested  in  this 
matter  will  read  the  entire  section  of  the  speech, 
and  see  whether  I  do  the  judge  injustice.  He 
proceeds : 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of 
November,  followed  by  the  glorification  of  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  on  the  i8th  of  November,  and 
this  clause  in  the  constitution  asserting  the  doctrine 
that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its 
limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blov/  being  struck 
at  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

I  stop  the  quotation  there,  again  requesting 
that  it  may  all  be  read.  I  have  read  all  of  the  por- 
tion I  desire  to  comment  upon.  What  is  this 
charge  that  the  judge  thinks  I  must  have  a  very 
corrupt  heart  to  make  ?  It  was  a  purpose  on  the 
part  of  certain  high  functionaries  to  make  it  im- 
possible for  the  people  of  one  State  to  prohibit 
the  people  of  any  other  State  from  entering  it 
with  their  ''property,"  so  called,  and  making  it  a 
slave  State.  In  other  w^ords,  it  was  a  charge  im- 
plying a  design  to  make  the  institution  of  slavery 


1858]  AT  OTTAWA  161 

national.  And  now  I  ask  your  attention  to  what 
Judge  Douglas  has  himself  done  here.  I  know 
he  made  that  part  of  the  speech  as  a  reason  why 
he  had  refused  to  vote  for  a  certain  man  for  pub- 
lic printer,  but  when  we  get  at  it,  the  charge  it- 
self is  the  very  one  I  made  against  him,  that  he 
thinks  I  am  so  corrupt  for  uttering.  Now,  whom 
does  he  make  that  charge  against  ?  Does  he  make 
it  against  that  newspaper  editor  merely?  No ;  he 
says  it  is  identical  in  spirit  with  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  and  so  the  framers  of  that  constitu- 
tion are  brought  in  with  the  editor  of  the  news- 
paper in  that  "fatal  blow  being  struck."  He  did 
not  call  it  a  ^'conspiracy."  In  his  language  it  is  a 
"fatal  blow  being  struck."  And  if  the  words 
carry  the  meaning  better  when  changed  from  a 
"conspiracy"  into  a  "fatal  blow  being  struck," 
I  will  change  my  expression  and  call  it  "fatal 
blow  being  struck."  We  see  the  charge  made  not 
merely  against  the  editor  of  the  Union,  but  all 
the  framers  of  the  Lecompton  constitution ;  and 
not  only  so,  but  the  article  was  an  authoritative 
article.  By  whose  authority  ?  Is  there  any  ques- 
tion but  that  he  means  it  was  by  the  authority  of 
the  President  and  his  cabinet — the  administra- 
tion? Is  there  any  sort  of  question  but  that  he 
means  to  make  that  charge?  Then  there  are  the 
editors  of  the  Union,  the  framers  of  the  Lecomp- 
ton constitution,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  his  cabinet,  and  all  the  supporters  of 
the  Lecompton  constitution,  in  Congress  and  out 
of  Congress,  who  are  all  involved  in  this  "fatal 
blow  being  struck."  I  commend  to  Judge  Doug- 
las's consideration  the  question  of  how  corrupt 
a  man's  heart  must  be  to  make  such  a  charge  ? 
Now,  my  friends,  I  have  but  one  branch  of  the 


i62  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

subject,  in  the  little  time  I  have  left,  to  which  to 
call  your  attention,  and  as  I  shall  come  to  a  close 
at  the  end  of  that  branch,  it  is  probable  that  I 
shall  not  occupy  quite  all  the  time  allotted  to  me. 
Although  on  these  questions  I  would  like  to  talk 
twice  as  long-  as  I  have,  I  could  not  enter  upon 
another  head  and  discuss  it  properly  without  run- 
ning over  my  time.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
people  here  assembled  and  elsewhere,  to  the 
course  that  Judge  Douglas  is  pursuing  every  day 
as  bearing  upon  this  question  of  making  slavery 
national.  Not  going  back  to  the  records,  but  tak- 
ing the  speeches  he  makes,  the  speeches  he  made 
yesterday  and  day  before,  and  makes  constantly 
all  over  the  country — I  ask  your  attention  to 
them.  In  the  first  place,  what  is  necessary  to 
make  the  institution  national  ?  Not  war.  There 
is  no  danger  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  will 
shoulder  their  muskets,  and,  with  a  young  nigger 
stuck  on  every  bayonet,  march  into  Illinois  and 
force  them  upon  us.  There  is  no  danger  of  our 
going  over  there  and  making  war  upon  them. 
Then  what  is  necessary  for  the  nationalization  of 
slavery?  It  is  simply  the  next  Dred  Scott  deci- 
sion. It  is  merely  for  the  Supreme  Court  to  de- 
cide that  no  State  under  the  Constitution  can  ex- 
clude it,  just  as  .  they  have  already  decided 
that  under  the  Constitution  neither  Congress 
nor  the  territorial  legislature  can  do  it.  When 
that  is  decided  and  acquiesced  in,  the  whole 
thing  is  done.  This  being  true,  and  this  being  the 
way,  as  I  think,  that  slavery  is  to  be  made  na- 
tional, let  us  consider  what  Judge  Douglas  is  do- 
ing every  day  to  that  end.  In  the  first  place,  let 
us  see  what  influence  he  is  exerting  on  public 
sentiment.     In  this  and  like  communities,  public 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  163 

sentiment  is  everything-.  With  piibHc  sentiment, 
nothing  can  fail ;  without  it,  nothing  can  succeed. 
Consequently  he  who  molds  public  sentiment  goes 
deeper  than  he  who  enacts  statutes  or  pronounces 
decisions.  He  makes  statutes  and  decisions  pos- 
sible or  impossible  to  be  executed.  This  must  be 
borne  in  mind,  as  also  the  additional  fact  that 
Judge  Douglas  is  a  man  of  vast  influence,  so 
great  that  it  is  enough  for  many  men  to  profess  to 
believe  anything  when  they  once  find  out  that 
Judge  Douglas  professes  to  believe  it.  Consider 
also  the  attitude  he  occupies  at  the  head  of  a  large 
party — a  party  which  he  claims  has  a  majority  of 
all  the  voters  in  the  country. 

This  man  sticks  to  a  decision  which  forbids  the 
people  of  a  Territory  to  exclude  slavery,  and  he 
does  so  not  because  he  says  it  is  right  in  itself, — 
he  does  not  give  any  opinion  on  that, — but  be- 
cause it  has  been  decided  by  the  court,  and,  being 
decided  by  the  court,  he  is,  and  you  are,  bound 
to  take  it  in  your  political  action  as  law — not  that 
he  judges  at  all  of  its  merits,  but  because  a  de- 
cision of  the  court  is  to  him  a  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord."  He  places  it  on  that  ground  alone,  and 
you  will  bear  in  mind  that  thus  committing  him- 
self unreservedly  to  this  decision  commits  him 
to  the  next  one  just  as  firmly  as  to  this.  He  did 
not  commit  himself  on  account  of  the  merit  or 
demerit  of  the  decision,  but  it  is  a  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord."  The  next  decision,  as  much  as  this,  will 
be  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord."  There  is  nothing 
that  can  divert  or  turn  him  away  from  this  de- 
cision. It  is  nothing  that  I  point  out  to  him  that 
his  great  prototype,  General  Jackson,  did  not  be- 
lieve in  the  binding  force  of  decisions.  It  is 
nothing  to  him  that  Jefferson  did  not  so  believe.  I 


i64  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  21 

have  said  that  I  have  often  heard  him  approve  of 
Jackson's  course  in  disregarding  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  pronouncing  a  national  bank 
constitutional.  He  says  I  did  not  hear  him  say 
so.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  my  recollection.  I 
say  he  ought  to  know  better  than  I,  but  I  will 
make  no  question  about  this  thing,  though  it  still 
seems  to  me  that  I  heard  him  say  it  twenty  times. 
I  will  tell  him,  thougli,  that  he  now  claims  to 
stand  on  the  Cincinnati  platform,  which  affirms 
that  Congress  cannot  charter  a  national  bank,  in 
the  teeth  of  that  old  standing  decision  that  Con- 
gress can  charter  a  bank.  And  I  remind  him  of 
another  piece  of  history  on  the  question  of  re- 
spect for  judicial  decisions,  and  it  is  a  piece  of 
Illinois  history,  belonging  to  a  time  when  a  large 
party  to  which  Judge  Douglas  belonged  were  dis- 
pleased with  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois,  because  they  had  decided  that  a  governor 
could  not  remove  a  secretary  of  state.  You  will 
find  the  whole  story  in  Ford's  ''History  of  Illi- 
nois," and  I  know  that  Judge  Douglas  will  not 
deny  that  he  was  then  in  favor  of  overslaughing 
that  decision  by  the  mode  of  adding  five  new 
judges,  so  as  to  vote  down  the  four  old  ones. 
Not  only  so,  but  it  ended  in  the  judge's  sitting 
down  on  the  very  bench  as  one  of  the  five  new 
judges  to  break  down  the  four  old  ones.  It  was 
in  this  way  precisely  that  he  got  his  title  of  judge. 
Now,  when  the  judge  tells  me  that  men  ap- 
pointed conditionally  to  sit  as  members  of  a  court 
will  have  to  be  catechised  beforehand  upon  some 
subject,  I  say,  "You  know,  judge;  you  have  tried 
it."  When  he  says  a  court  of  this  kind  will  lose 
the  confidence  of  all  men,  will  be  prostituted  and 
disgraced  by   such   a  proceeding,   I   say,   "You 


i85S]  AT  OTTAWA  165 

know  best,  judge;  you  have  been  through  the 
mill." 

But  I  cannot  shake  Judge  Douglas's  teeth  loose 
from  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Like  some  obsti- 
nate animal  (I  mean  no  disrespect)  that  will 
hang  on  when  he  has  once  got  his  teeth  fixed, — 
you  may  cut  off  a  leg,  or  you  may  tear  away  an 
arm,  still  he  will  not  relax  his  hold.  And  so  I  may 
point  out  to  the  judge,  and  say  that  he  is  bespat- 
tered all  over,  from  the  beginning  of  his  political 
life  to  the  present  time,  with  attacks  upon  judicial 
decisions, — I  may  cut  off  limb  after  limb  of  his 
public  record,  and  strive  to  wrench  from  him  a 
single  dictum  of  the  court,  yet  I  cannot  divert  him 
from  it.  He  hangs  to  the  last  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  These  things  show  there  is  a  purpose 
strong  as  death  and  eternity  for  which  he  ad- 
heres to  this  decision,  and  for  which  he  will  ad- 
here to  all  other  decisions  of  the  same  court. 
[A  Hibernian:  "Give  us  something  besides  Drid 
Scott."]  Yes;  no  doubt  you  want  to  hear  some- 
thing that  don't  hurt.  Now,  having  spoken  of 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  one  more  word  and  I 
am  done.  Henry  Clay,  my  beau  ideal  of  a  states- 
man, the  man  for  whom  I  fought  all  my  humble 
life — Henry  Clay  once  said  of  a  class  of  men  who 
would  repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ulti- 
mate emancipation,  that  they  must,  if  they  would 
do  this,  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  independence, 
and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual 
joyous  return ;  they  must  blow  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us ;  they  must  penetrate  the  human 
soul,  and  eradicate  there  the  love  of  liberty ;  and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  could  they  perpetuate 
slavery  in  this  country !  To  my  thinking, 
Judge  Douglas  is,  by  his  example  and  vast  influ- 


i66  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  21 

ence,  doing  that  very  thing  in  this  community 
when  he  says  that  the  negro  has  nothing  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Henry  Clay  plainly 
understood  the  contrary.  Judge  Douglas  is  go- 
ing back  to  the  era  of  our  Revolution,  and  to  the 
extent  of  his  ability  muzzling  the  cannon  which 
thunders  its  annual  joyous  return.  When  he  in- 
vites any  people,  willing  to  have  slavery,  to  es- 
tablish it,  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights 
around  us.  When  he  says  he  ''cares  not  whether 
slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up" — that  it  is  a 
sacred  right  of  self-government — he  is,  in  my 
judgment,  penetrating  the  human  soul  and  eradi- 
cating the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of  liberty 
in  this  American  people.  And  now  I  will  only 
say  that  when,  by  all  these  means  and  appliances, 
Judge  Douglas  shall  succeed  in  bringing  public 
sentiment  to  an  exact  accordance  with  his  own 
views — when  these  vast  assemblages  shall  echo 
back  all  these  sentiments — when  they  shall  come 
to  repeat  his  views  and  to  avow  his  principles, 
and  to  say  all  that  he  says  on  these  mighty  ques- 
tions— then  it  needs  only  the  formality  of  the 
second  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  he  indorses  in 
advance,  to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South. 

My  friends,  that  ends  the  chapter.  The  judge 
can  take  his  half  hour. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder. 

Fellow-citizens:  I  will  now  occupy  the  half  hour 
allotted  to  me  in  replying  to  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  first 
point  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention  is,  as  to  what 
I  said  about  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party 
in  1854,  and  the  platform  that  was  formed  on  the  5th 


i858]  AT  OTTAWA  167 

of  October  of  that  year,  and  I  will  then  put  the  ques- 
tion to  Mr.  Lincoln,  whether  or  not  he  approves  of  each 
article  in  that  platform,  and  ask  for  a  specific  answer. 
I  did  not  charge  him  with  being  a  member  of  the 
committee  which  reported  that  platform.  I  charged 
that  that  platform  was  the  platform  of  the  Republican 
party  adopted  by  them.  The  fact  that  it  was  the  plat- 
form of  the  Republican  party  is  not  denied,  but  Mr. 
Lincoln  now  says  that  although  his  name  was  on  the 
committee  which  reported  it,  he  does  not  think  he 
was  there,  but  thinks  he  was  in  Tazewell,  holding 
court.  Now,  I  want  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  that  he 
was  at  Springfield  when  that  convention  was  held  and 
those  resolutions  adopted. 

The  point  I  am  going  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  of  is 
this:  that  after  1  had  made  my  speech  in  1854,  during 
the  fair,  he  gave  me  notice  that  he  was  going  to  reply 
to  me  the  next  day.  I  was  sick  at  the  time,  but  I 
stayed  over  in  Springfield  to  hear  his  reply  and  to 
reply  to  him.  On  that  day  this  very  convention,  the 
resolutions  adopted  by  which  I  have  read,  was  to  meet 
in  the  Senate  chamber.  He  spoke  in  the  hall  of  the 
House;  and  when  he  got  through  his  speech — my 
recollection  is  distinct,  and  I  shall  never  forget  it — • 
Mr.  Codding  walked  in  as  I  took  the  stand  to  reply, 
and  gave  notice  that  the  Republican  State  convention 
would  meet  instantly  in  the  Senate  chamber,  and  called 
upon  the  Republicans  to  retire  there  and  go  into  this 
very  convention,  instead  of  remaining  and  listening  to 
me. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  selected  by  the 
very  men  who  made  the  Republican  organization  on 
that  day,  to  reply  to  me.  He  spoke  for  them  and  for 
that  party,  and  he  was  the  leader  of  the  party;  and  on 
the  very  day  he  made  his  speech  in  reply  to  me, 
preaching  up  this  same  doctrine  of  negro  equality 
under  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  this  Republi- 
can party  met  in  convention.  Another  evidence  that 
he  was  acting  in  concert  with  them  is  to  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  that  convention  waited  an  hour  after  its 
time  of  meeting  to  hear  Lincoln's  speech,  and  Cod- 
ding, one  of  their  leading  men,  marched  in  the  moment 
Lincoln  got  through,  and  gave  notice  that  they  did  not 
want  to  hear  me,  and  would  proceed  with  the  business 
of  the  convention.     Still  another  fact.     I  have  here  a 


i68  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  21 

newspaper  printed  at  Springfield — Mr.  Lincoln's  own 
town — in  October,  1854,  a  few  days  afterward,  publish- 
ing these  resolutions,  charging  Mr.  Lincoln  with  enter- 
taining these  sentiments,  and  trying  to  prove  that  they 
were  also  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Yates,  then  candidate 
for  Congress.  This  has  been  published  on  Mr.  Lin- 
coln over  and  over  again,  and  never  before  has  he 
denied  it. 

But,  my  friends,  this  denial  of  his  that  he  did  not 
act  on  the  committee,  is  a  miserable  quibble  to  avoid 
the  main  issue,  which  is  that  this  Republican  platform 
declares  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the 
fugitive-slave  law.  Has  Lincoln  answered  whether  he 
indorsed  that  or  not?  I  called  his  attention  to  it  when 
I  first  addressed  you,  and  asked  him  for  an  answer, 
and  then  predicted  that  he  would  not  answer.  How 
does  he  answer?  Why,  that  he  was  not  on  the  com- 
mittee that  wrote  the  resolutions.  I  then  repeated  the 
next  proposition  contained  in  the  resolutions,  which 
was  to  restrict  slavery  in  those  States  in  which  it 
exists,  and  asked  him  whether  he  indorsed  it.  Does  he 
answer  yes  or  no?  He  says  in  reply,  "I  was  not  on 
the  committee  at  the  time;  I  was  up  in  Tazewell." 
The  next  question  I  put  to  him  was,  whether  he  was  in 
favor  of  prohibiting  the  admission  of  any  more  slave 
States  into  the  Union.  I  put  the  question  to  him 
distinctly,  whether,  if  the  people  of  the  Territory, 
when  they  had  sufficient  population  to  make  a  State, 
should  form  their  constitution  recognizing  slavery,  he 
would  vote  for  or  against  its  admission.  He  is  a 
candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  it  is 
possible,  if  he  should  be  elected,  that  he  would  have  to 
vote  directly  on  that  question.  I  ask  him  to  answer 
me  and  you,  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  a  State 
into  the  Union,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  its  own 
people  might  choose.  He  did  not  answer  that  ques- 
tion. He  dodges  that  question  also,  under  cover  that 
he  was  not  on  the  committee  at  the  time,  that  he  was 
not  present  when  the  platform  was  made.  I  want  to 
know,  if  he  should  happen  to  be  in  the  Senate  when  ?. 
State  applied  for  admission  with  a  constitution  accept- 
able to  her  own  people,  whether  he  would  vote  to 
admit  that  State  if  slavery  was  one  of  its  institutions. 
He  avoids  the  answer. 

It  is  true  he  gives  the  Abolitionists  to  understand 


i8s8]  AT  OTTAWA  169 

by  a  hint  that  he  would  not  vote  to  admit  such  a  State. 
And  why?  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  man  who 
would  talk  about  giving  each  State  the  right  to  have 
slavery  or  not,  as  it  pleased,  was  akin  to  the  man  who 
would  muzzle  the  guns  which  thundered  forth  the 
annual  joyous  return  of  the  day  of  our  independence. 
He  says  that  that  kind  of  talk  is  casting  a  blight  on 
the  glory  of  this  country.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
that?  That  he  is  not  in  favor  of  each  State  to  have 
the  right  of  doing  as  it  pleases  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion? I  will  put  the  question  to  him  again  and  again, 
and  I  intend  to  force  it  out  of  him. 

Then  again,  this  platform  which  was  made  at  Spring- 
field by  his  own  party,  when  he  was  its  acknowledged 
head,  provides  that  Republicans  will  insist  on  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  I 
asked  Lincoln  specifically  whether  he  agreed  with  them 
in  that.  ["Did  you  get  an  answer?"]  He  is  afraid 
to  answer  it.  He  knows  I  will  trot  him  down  to 
Egypt.  I  intend  to  make  him  answer  there,  or  I  will 
show  the  people  of  Illinois  that  he  does  not  intend  to 
answer  these  questions.  The  convention  to  which  I 
have  been  alluding  goes  a  little  further,  and  pledges 
itself  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over 
which  the  General  Government  has  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion north  of  36°  30',  as  well  as  south.  Now  I  want 
to  know  whether  he  approves  that  provision.  I  want 
him  to  answer,  and  when  he  does,  I  want  to  know  his 
opinion  on  another  point,  which  is,  whether  he  will 
redeem  the  pledge  of  this  platform  and  resist  the  ac- 
quirement of  any  more  territory  unless  slavery  therein 
shall  be  forever  prohibited.  I  want  him  to  answer 
this  last  question.  All  of  the  questions  I  have  put  to 
him  are  practical  questions — questions  based  upon  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Black  Republican  party; 
and  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  the  first,  last,  and 
only  choice  of  a  party  with  whom  he  does_  not  agree 
in  principle.  He  does  not  deny  that  that  principle  was 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  Republican  party;  he  does 
not  deny  that  the  whole  Republican  party  is  pledged 
to  it;  he  does  not  deny  that  a  m.an  who  is  not  faithful 
to  it  is  faithless  to  the  Republican  party;  and  now  I 
want  to  know  whether  that  party  is  unanimously  in 
favor  of  a  man  who  does  not  adopt  that  creed  and 
agree  with  them  in  their  principles:  I  want  to  know 


'Ajg. 


M^knihir-  thr  siE^  wbK  Ams  noit  a@iuuL  irxx 

jgy^     I^     ~i''^    umiyis.     JfilsSL    sxd.   <flUU|'    CuOSOC    €l£   tifcs^ 

.J jFtrsiT'  jpuLiiJi)>~    £^  swuz-   '"Stai!  tvRuwti  Xftp  ann^v^ 
:    .   itiwmn  iritiiir&i  I  fistre  rsaA  ibd  j>ani  molt  ^Eoilf 


IT?  -xnc  s.  gmwuMiily  ifflatt  be  fix 


jiihiSu^a  paisi^  3&am^  gEfla^sd  tib;^ 


Jilt  ~   ^^faE^^Maaaig,  dbe  ioe  ciauM 

3— rfl  2.  fadk ,  and.  mfttwii  he 

-n-i-.f]^  1tBI>  aantu  wttflkuiiilt  an 

jKse  4gnESEl&BnSr  he  sat 


"ET  jiX   lie  -    -TTgc  -V 


-  1  X   53   i 


]85S]  AT  OTTAWA  171 

against  me.  tlm5   :/  -  ■  -     -       t  widi  mocal  hn'pfUfiV 
"VMien  lie  pat  it  in.  rn?r  lorm.  i  did  -ay.  r^ar  rrKfiuntKh. 
as  fce  repe^"^^     "=    "        r^  becsnse  I  isT         : 

deracd  it.  _      ,_-__:_:  :  lie  opportnc- 

erer  nrpea.rirLg  ix  agairr  by  declariiig-  tfest  rt  wa«  ia  2II 
rta  besxniga  an  H-'^arn  :  t.     He  asja  !ie  wiU  rrcesr 

it  rmTTT  I  ---  — ^-  '-  T  -  -  f  -:  T'^d^e  t*   "~  Sceccd. 

and  Fr^  _         -    -    i  -  :  ^  :  b.  am  .        t5. 


how  pretrj  it  is.  His  -raxiitT  £5  wcnu'ied  becs-nrse  i  ~"— 
not  go  into  tn.it  beannfcl  figure  ol  his  a":  ■'■  -  btsld- 
frig  of  a  botise.  AH  I  hs.ire  ro  say  :5  ::  ^  "t:  -:" 
greoi  eiocgii  to  Let  r-H-n  rrnVp-  a  :-i^_*^r  ^-i-:_i  ^r 
acknowledges  he  does  not  knoTir  to  be  rrias:.  and  -h-en 
take  np  my  tinie  in  ans-*eri=:g  ri.  when  I  "  '  ■  ' 

be  false  and  nobody  else  knows  rr  to  be  rr-i:. 

I  have  not  brottght  a  charge  qz  —  :  ni  rr-r  - 1 :  r 
against  hfm  Whoi  he.  or  any  ochfr  —.■'--  b~^?  :ne 
against  me.  instead  of  (f  i : " :  ng  iz.  I  w-''  say  ~~:?r  is 
is  a  lie.  and  let  TiTn  ■dtov;  .:  _:  he  ctir* 

I  have  lived  rsrenry-dve  years  in  ^  :t5.  I  have 
served  yon  with  all  the  ndelity  an'd  abiliry  which:  I 
possess,  and  ilr.  Linccin  is  at  hberty  to  arrack  mv 
public  action,  my  votes,  and  rty  crndnct;  bet  wnen  he 
dares  to  attack  my  m-rral  httegritj.  by  a  dbarse  ot 
conspiracy  between  m3rse'f.  Chief  Jnsdce  Taney  and 
the  S^rprer-^-    ^  ir:  ~- :  Presidents  of  the  Uaited 

States,  r  ^       -._.  ._ 

Mr.  Lincohi  has  not  character  enoc-gh  fcr  hrte-zrity 
and  tmth.  merely  on  his  own  ifse  diri,  to  arraign 
President  Bnchanan.  Presideit  Pie-^  =  -  :  mne  :n«dges 
of  the  Supreme  Conrt.  not  one  .  -  _ :  tt  wocld  ~be 
complimented  by  being  pet  on  an  e^tna!-ry-  with,  h-r-rr. 
There  is  an  nnpardonable  presamt  1  maim  pnt- 

tii^  himself  tip  before  thocsands  _-  uaA  pre- 

tet«Eng  that  his  i^se  dixit,  wrthool  pr .  .  _.  —r^  fiaOL 

and    withottt   tmth.    is    enoogh    to    bring  and 

destFC"  -    -est  and  best  t"         -g  merr, 

reL:.. -1,'  --"-my  time  is     .-:  -    ;■  ~~r"  ~ — nst  fa.ss 
en.     Mr.  L     .        '^rin-s  to  k- :  v  "     _   z_  3J-i'--ir^ 

Mr.   Chase's  a  :  to  the  Nr :  -    -  -n  btH     I  will 

teU  him.    In  :_  ;    -   -  :e.  the  bux  ^    :    :  -  o?nferrTgd 


172  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  21 

all  the  power  which  Congress  had,  by  giving  the 
people  the  whole  power  over  the  subject.  Chase 
offered  a  proviso  that  they  might  abolish  slavery, 
which  by  implication  would  convey  the  idea  that  they 
could  prohibit  by  not  introducing  that  institution. 
General  Cass  asked  him  to  modify  his  amendment,  so 
as  to  provide  that  the  people  might  either  prohibit  or 
introduce  slavery,  and  thus  make  it  fair  and  equal. 
Chase  refused  to  so  modify  his  proviso,  and  then 
General  Cass  and  all  the  rest  of  us  voted  it  down. 
Those  facts  appear  on  the  journals  and  debates  of 
Congress,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  found  the  charge,  and  if 
he  had  told  the  whole  truth,  there  would  have  been  no 
necessity  for  me  to  occupy  your  time  in  explaining  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Lincoln  wants  to  know  why  the  word  "■  State," 
as  well  as  "Territory,"  was  put  into  the  Nebraska  bill? 
I  will  tell  him.  It  was  put  there  to  meet  just  such 
false  arguments  as  he  has  been  adducing.  That  first, 
not  only  the  people  of  the  Territories  should  do  as 
they  pleased,  but  that  when  they  come  to  be  admitted 
as  States,  they  should  come  into  the  L'nion  with  or 
without  slavery,  as  the  people  determined.  I  meant  to 
knock  in  the  head  this  Abolition  doctrine  of  ^Ir. 
Lincoln's,  that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States, 
even  if  the  people  want  them.  And  it  does  not  do  for 
him  to  say.  or  or  for  any  other  Black  Republican  to 
say.  that  there  is  nobody  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  no 
more  slave  States,  and  that  nobody  wants  to  interfere 
with  the  right  of  the  people  to  do  as  they  please. 
What  was  the  origin  of  the  Missouri  difficulty  and  the 
Missouri  Compromise?  The  people  of  Missouri 
formed  a  constitution  as  a  slave  State,  and  asked  ad- 
mission into  the  Union,  but  the  Free-soil  party  of 
the  North,  being  in  a  majority,  refused  to  admit  her 
because  she  had  slavery  as  one  of  her  institutions. 
Hence  this  first  slavery  agitation  arose  upon  a  State 
and  not  upon  a  Territory,  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  does 
not  know  why  the  word  State  was  placed  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  The  whole  Abolition  agitation 
arose  on  that  doctrine  of  prohibiting  a  State  from 
coming  in  with  slavery  or  not,  as  it  pleased,  and  that 
same  doctrine  is  here  in  this  Republican  platform  of 
1854;  it  has  never  been  repealed;  and  every  Black 
Republican  stands  pledged  by  that  platform  never  to 


1858]  .         AT  OTTAWA  173 

vote  for  any  man  who  is  not  in  favor  of  it.  Yet  Mr. 
Lincoln  does  not  know  that  there  is  a  man  in  the 
world  who  is  in  favor  of  preventing  a  State  from  com- 
ing in  as  it  pleases,  notwithstanding  the  Springfield 
platform  says  that  they,  the  Republican  party,  will 
not  allow  a  State  to  come  in  under  such  circumstances. 
He  is  an  ignorant  man. 

Now  you  see  that  upon  these  verj-  points  I  am  as 
far  from  bringing  Mr.  Lincoln  up  to  the  line  as  I 
ever  was  before.  He  does  not  want  to  avow  his  prin- 
ciples. I  do  want  to  avow  mine,  as  clear  as  sunlight 
in  midday.  Democracy  is  founded  upon  the  eternal 
principles  of  right.  The  plainer  these  principles  are 
avowed  before  the  people,  the  stronger  will  be  the 
support  which  the}-  will  receive.  I  onlj-  wish  I  had 
the  power  to  make  them  so  clear  that  they  would  shine 
in  the  heavens  for  every  man.  woman,  and  child  to 
read.  The  first  of  those  principles  that  I  would  pro- 
claim would  be  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  doctrine 
of  uniformity  between  the  different  States,  and  I  would 
declare  instead  the  sovereign  right  of  each  State  to 
decide  the  slavery-  question  as  well  as  all  other  domes- 
tic questions  for  themselves,  without  interference  from 
any  other  State  or  power  whatsoever. 

When  that  principle  is  recognized  you  will  have  peace 
and  harmony  and  fraternal  feeling  between  all  the 
States  of  this  L'nion:  until  you  do  recognize  that  doc- 
trine there  will  be  sectional  warfare  agitating  and  dis- 
tracting the  country-.  What  does  Mr.  Lincoln  pro- 
pose? He  says  that  the  Union  cannot  exist  divided 
into  free  and  slave  States.  If  it  cannot  endure  thus 
divided,  then  he  must  strive  to  make  them  all  free  or 
all  slave,  which  will  inevitably  bring  about  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  L'nion. 

Gentlemen.  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out,  and  I  am 
obliged  to  stop.* 

*  Xext  day  C August  22.  1858).  in  a  letter  written  from 
Ottawa  to  t.  O.  Cunningham.  Lincoln  wrote :  "Douglas 
and  I.  for  the  first  time  this  canvass,  crossed  swords  here 
yesterday ;  the  lire  flew  some,  and  I  am  giad  to  know 
I  am  yet  alive.  There  was  a  vast  concourse  of  people- 
more  than  could  get  near  enough  to  hear." 


174  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

Second  Joint  Debate,  at  Freeport. 

August  2y,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech, 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  On  Saturday  last, 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself  first  met  in  public  dis- 
cussion. He  spoke  one  hour,  I  an  hour  and  a 
half,  and  he  replied  for  half  an  hour.  The  order 
is  now  reversed.  I  am  to  speak  an  hour,  he  an 
hour  and  a  half,  and  then  I  am  to  reply  for  half 
an  hour.  I  propose  to  devote  myself  during  the 
first  hour  to  the  scope  of  what  was  brought  with- 
in the  range  of  his  half-hour  speech  at  Ottawa. 
Of  course  there  was  brought  within  the  scope  of 
that  half-hour's  speech  something  of  his  own 
opening  speech.  In  the  course  of  that  opening 
argument  Judge  Douglas  proposed  to  me  seven 
distinct  interrogatories.  In  my  speech  of  an  hour 
and  a  half,  I  attended  to  some  other  parts  of  his 
speech,  and  incidentally,  as  I  thought,  answered 
one  of  the  interrogatories  then.  I  then  distinctly 
intimated  to  him  that  I  would  answer  the  rest  of 
his  interrogatories  on  condition  only  that  he 
should  agree  to  answer  as  many  for  me.  He 
made  no  intimation  at  the  time  of  the  proposition, 
nor  did  he  in  his  reply  allude  at  all  to  that  sug- 
gestion of  mine.  I  do  him  no  injustice  in  saying 
that  he  occupied  at  least  half  of  his  reply  in  deal- 
ing with  me  as  though  I  had  refused  to  answer 
his  interrogatories.  I  now  propose  that  I  will 
answer  any  of  the  interrogatories,  upon  condi- 
tions that  he  will  answer  questions  from  me  not 
exceeding  the  same  number.  I  give  him  an  op- 
portunity to  respond.  The  judge  remains  silent. 
I  now  say  that  I  will  answer  his  interrogatories, 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  175 

whether  he  answers  mine  or  not ;  and  that  after 
I  have  done  so,  I  shall  propound  mine  to  him. 

I  have  supposed  myself,  since  the  organization 
of  the  Republican  party  at  Bloomington,  in  ^lay, 
1856,  bound  as  a  party  man  by  the  platforms  of 
the  party  then  and  since.  If  in  any  interroga- 
tories which  I  shall  answer  I  go  beyond  the  scope 
of  what  is  within  these  platforms,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived that  no  one  is  responsible  but  myself. 
Having  said  this  much,  I  will  take  up  the  judge's 
interrogatories  as  I  find  them  printed  in  the  Chi- 
cago Times,  and  answer  them  seriatim.  In  or- 
der that  there  may  be  no  mistake  about  it,  I  have 
copied  the  interrogatories  in  writing,  and  also 
my  answers  to  them.  The  first  one  of  these  in- 
terrogatories is  in  these  words  : 

Question  i.  'T  desire  to  know  whether  Lin- 
coin  to-day  stands  as  he  did  in  1854,  in  favor  of 
the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave 
law?" 

Answer.  I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  in 
favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  fugitive- 
slave  law. 

O.  2.  'T  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to-day  as  he  did  in  1854,  against 
the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the 
Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them?" 

A.  I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  pledged 
against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States 
into  the  Union. 

O.  3.  *T  want  to  know  whether  he  stands 
pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State 
into  the  Union  with  such  a  constitution  as  the 
people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make?" 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  against  the  ad- 
mission of  a  nevv'  State  into  the  Union  with  such 


176  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

2l  constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see 
fit  to  make. 

Q.  4.  "I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  to- 
day pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  ?" 

A.  I  do  not  stand  to-day  pledged  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

O.  5.  "I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave- 
trade  between  the  different  States." 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition 
of  the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States. 

O.  6.  ''I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands 
pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories 
of  the  United  States,  North  as  well  as  South  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  line?" 

A.  I  am  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  pledged 
to  a  belief  in  the  right  and  duty  of  Congress  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  United  States  Terri- 
tories. 

O.  7.  'T  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is 
opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  new  territory 
unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited  therein?" 

A.  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest  ac- 
quisition of  territory ;  and,  in  any  given  case,  I 
would  or  would  not  oppose  such  acquisition,  ac- 
cordingly as  I  might  think  such  acquisition  would 
or  would  not  aggravate  the  slavery  question 
among  ourselves. 

Now,  my  friends,  it  will  be  perceived  upon  an 
examination  of  these  questions  and  answers  that 
so  far  I  have  only  answered  that  I  was  not 
pledged  to  this,  that,  or  the  other.  The  judge 
has  not  framed  his  interrogatories  to  ask  me 
anything  more  than  this,  and  I  have  answered  in 
strict   accordance   with   the   interrogatories,   and 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  177 

have  answered  truly  that  I  am  not  pledged  at  all 
upon  any  of  the  points  to  which  I  have  answered. 
But  I  am  not  disposed  to  hang  upon  the  exact 
form  of  his  interrogatory.  I  am  really  disposed 
to  take  up  at  least  some  of  these  questions,  and 
state  what  I  reall}^  think  upon  them. 

As  to  the  first  one,  in  regard  to  the  fugitive- 
slave  law,  I  have  never  hesitated  to  say,  and  I  do 
not  now  hesitate  to  say,  that  I  think,  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States  are  entitled  to  a  congres- 
sional fugitive-slave  law.  Having  said  that,  I 
have  had  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  the  existing 
fugitive-slave  law,  further  than  that  I  think  it 
should  have  been  framed  so  as  to  be  free  from 
some  of  the  objections  that  pertain  to  it,  without 
lessening  its  efficiency.  And  inasmuch  as  we  are 
not  now  in  an  agitation  in  regard  to  an  alteration 
or  modification  of  that  law,  I  would  not  be  the 
man  to  introduce  it  as  a  new  subject  of  agitation 
upon  the  general  question  of  slavery. 

In  regard  to  the  other  question  of  whether  I 
am  pledged  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave 
States  into  the  Union.  I  state  to  you  very  frankly 
that  I  would  be  exceedingly  sorry  ever  to  be  put 
in  a  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that  question. 
I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there 
would  never  be  another  slave  State  admitted  into 
the  Union;  but  I  must  add  that  if  slavery  shall 
be  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  terri- 
torial existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and 
then  the  people  shall,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a 
clear  field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  Constitu- 
tion, do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt 
a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual 
presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no 


178  '  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

alternative,  if  we  own  the  country,*  but  to  admit 
them  into  the  Union. 

The  third  interrogatory  is  answered  by  the 
answer  to  the  second,  it  being,  as  I  conceive,  the 
same  as  the  second. 

The  fourth  one  is  in  regard  to  the  aboHtion  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  relation 
to  that,  I  have  my  mind  very  distinctly  made  up. 
I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  see  slavery  abol- 
ished in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  believe  that 
Congress  possesses  the  constitutional  power  to 
abolish  it.  Yet  as  a  member  of  Congress,  I 
should  not  with  my  present  views  be  in  favor  of 
endeavoring  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  unless  it  would  be  upon  these  condi- 
tions :.  First,  that  the  abolition  should  be  gradu- 
al ;  second,  that  it  should  be  on  a  vote  of  the 
majority  of  qualified  voters  in  the  District ;  and 
third,  that  compensation  should  be  made  to  un- 
willing owners.  With  these  three  conditions,  I 
confess  I  would  be  exceedingly  glad  to  see  Con- 
gress abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and,  in  the  language  of  Henry  Clay,  "sweep  from 
our  capital  that  foul  blot  upon  our  nation." 

In  regard  to  the  fifth  interrogatory,  I  must 
say  here  that  as  to  the  question  of  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States,  I 
can  truly  answer,  as  I  have,  that  I  am  pledged  to 
nothing  about  it.  It  is  a  subject  to  which  I  have 
not  given  that  mature  consideration  that  would 
make  me  feel  authorized  to  state  a  position  so  as 
to  hold  myself  entirely  bound  by  it.  In  other 
v/ords,  that  question  has  never  been  prominently 
enough  before  me  to  induce  me  to  investigate 

*  A  qualification  intended  to  exempt  Cuba,  whose  annex- 
ation was  contemplated  by  President  Buchanan. 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  179 

whether  we  really  have  the  constitutional  power 
to  do  it.  I  could  investigate  it  if  I  had  sufficient 
time  to  bring  myself  to  a  conclusion  upon  that 
subject,  but  I  have  not  done  so,  and  I  say  so 
frankly  to  you  here  and  to  Judge  Douglas.  I 
must  say,  however,  that  if  I  should  be  of  opinion 
that  Congress  does  possess  the  constitutional 
power  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  among  the  dif- 
ferent States,  I  should  still  not  be  in  favor  of  the 
exercise  of  that  power  unless  upon  some  conserv- 
ative principle  as  I  conceive  it,  akin  to  what  I 
have  said  in  relation  to  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

My  answer  as  to  whether  I  desire  that  slavery 
should  be  prohibited  in  all  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States  is  full  and  explicit  within  itself, 
and  cannot  be  made  clearer  by  any  comments  of 
mine.  So  I  suppose  in  regard  to  the  question 
whether  I  am  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any 
more  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited 
therein  ;'^  my  answer  is  such  that  I  could  add  noth- 
ing by  way  of  illustration,  or  making  myself  bet- 
ter understood,  than  the  answer  which  I  have 
placed  in  writing. 

Now  in  all  this  the  judge  has  me,  and  he  has 
me  on  the  record.  I  suppose  he  had  flattered 
himself  that  I  was  really  entertaining  one  set  of 
opinions  for  one  place  and  another  set  for  another 
place — that  I  was  afraid  to  say  at  one  place  what 
I  uttered  at  another.  What  I  am  saying  here  I 
suppose  I  say  to  a  vast  audience  as  strongly  tend- 
ing to  Abolitionism  as  any  audience  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  and  I  believe  I  am  saying  that  which, 
if  it  would  be  offensive  to  any  persons  and  ren- 

*  The  proposed  annexation  of  Cuba  is  referred  to. 


i8o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

der  them  enemies  to  myself,  would  be  offensive  to 
persons  in  this  audience. 

I  now  proceed  to  propound  to  the  judge  the 
interrogatories  so  far  as  I  have  framed  them. 
I  will  bring  forward  a  new  instalment  when  I  get 
them  ready.  I  will  bring  them  forward  now, 
only  reaching  to  number  four. 

The  first  one  is : 

Question  i.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by 
means  entirely  unobjectionable  in  all  other  re- 
spects, adopt  a  State  constitution,  and  ask  ad- 
mission into  the  Union  under  it,  before  they  have 
the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  according  to 
the  English  bill, — some  ninety-three  thousand, — 
will  you  vote  to  admit  them? 

Q.  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Ter- 
ritory, in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from 
its  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  consti- 
tution ? 

O.  3.  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  shall  decide  that  States  cannot  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  ac- 
quiescing in,  adopting,  and  following  such  deci- 
sion as  a  rule  of  political  action  ? 

O.  4.  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional 
territory,  in  disregard  of  how  such  acquisition 
may  affect  the  nation  on  the  slavery  question  ? 

As  introductory  to  these  interrogatories  which 
Judge  Douglas  propounded  to  me  at  Ottawa,  he 
read  a  set  of  resolutions  which  he  said  Judge 
Trumbull  and  myself  had  participated  in  adopt- 
ing, in  the  first  Republican  State  convention,  held 
at  Springfield,  in  October,  1854.  He  insisted  that 
I  and  Judge  Trumbull,  and  perhaps  the  entire 
Republican  party,  were  responsible  for  the  doc- 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  i8l 

trines  contained  in  the  set  of  resolutions  which 
he  read,  and  I  understand  that  it  was  from 
that  set  of  resolutions  that  he  deduced 
the  interrogatories  which  he  propounded  to 
me,  usins:  these  resolutions  as  a  sort  of  author- 
ity  for  propounding  those  questions  to  me.  Now 
I  say  here  to-day  that  I  do  not  answer  his  inter- 
rogatories because  of  their  springing  at  all  from 
that  set  of  resolutions  which  he  read.  I  answered 
them  because  Judge  Douglas  thought  fit  to  ask 
them.  I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  recognize  any 
responsibility  upon  myself  in  that  set  of  resolu- 
tions. When  I  replied  to  him  on  that  occasion,  I 
assured  him  that  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with 
them.  I  repeat  here  to-day,  that  I  never  in  any 
possible  form  had  anything  to  do  with  that  set  of 
resolutions.  It  turns  out,  I  beheve,  that  those 
resolutions  were  never  passed  by  any  convention 
held  in  Springfield.  It  turns  out  that  they  were 
never  passed  at  any  convention  or  any  public 
meeting  that  I  had  any  part  in.  I  be- 
lieve it  turns  out,  in  addition  to  all  this,  that 
there  was  not,  in  the  fall  of  1854,  any  conven- 
tion holding  a  session  in  Springfield  calling 
itself  a  Republican  State  convention ;  yet  it  is 
true  there  was  a  convention,  or  assemblage  of 
men  calling  themselves  a  convention,  at  Spring- 
field, that  did  pass  some  resolutions.  But 
so  little  did  I  really  know  of  the  proceedings  of 
that  convention,  or  what  set  of  resolutions  they 
had  passed,  though  having  a  general  knowledge 
that  there  had  been  such  an  assemblage  of  men 
there,  that  when  Judge  Douglas  read  the  resolu- 
tions, I  really  did  not  know  but  that  they  had 
been  the  resolutions  passed  then  and  there.  I  did 
not    question    that    they    were    the    resolutions 


i82  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

adopted.  For  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  sup- 
pose that  Judge  Douglas  could  say  what  he  did 
upon  this  subject  without  knowing  that  it  was 
true.  I  contented  myself,  on  that  occasion,  with 
denying,  as  I  truly  could,  all  connection  with 
them,  not  denying  or  affirming  whether  they 
were  passed  at  Springfield.  Now  it  turns  out 
that  he.had  got  hold  of  some  resolutions  passed  at 
some  convention  or  public  meeting  in  Kane 
County.  I  wish  to  say  here,  that  I  don't  conceive 
that  in  any  fair  and  just  mind  this  discovery  re- 
lieves me  at  all.  I  had  just  as  much  to  do  with 
the  convention  in  Kane  County  as  that  at  Spring- 
field. I  am  just  as  much  responsible  for  the  reso- 
lutions at  Kane  County  as  those  at  Springfield, 
the  amount  of  the  responsibility  being  exactly 
nothing  in  either  case ;  no  more  than  there  would 
be  in  regard  to  a  set  of  resolutions  passed  in  the 
moon. 

I  allude  to  this  extraordinary  matter  in  this 
canvass  for  some  further  purpose  than  anything 
yet  advanced.  Judge  Douglas  did  not  make  his 
statement  upon  that  occasion  as  matters  that  he 
believed  to  be  true,  but  he  stated  them  roundly 
as  being  true,  in  such  form  as  to  pledge  his  verac- 
ity for  their  truth.  When  the  whole  matter  turns 
out  as  it  does,  and  when  we  consider  who  Judge 
Douglas  is, — that  he  is  a  distinguished  senator  of 
the  United  States ;  that  he  has  served  nearly 
twelve  years  as  such ;  that  his  character  is  not  at 
all  limited  as  an  ordinary  senator  of  the  United 
States,  but  that  his  name  has  become  of  world- 
wide renown, — it  is  most  extraordinary  that  he 
should  so  far  forget  all  the  suggestions  of  justice 
to  an  adversary,  or  of  prudence  to  himself,  as  to 
venture  upon  the  assertion  of  that  which  the 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  183 

Slightest  investigation  would  have  shown  him  to 
be  wholly  false.  I  can  only  account  for  his  hav- 
ing done  so  upon  the  supposition  that  that  evil 
genius  which  has  attended  him  through  his  life, 
giving  to  him  an  apparent  astonishing  prosperity, 
such  as  to  lead  very  many  good  men  to  doubt 
there  being  any  advantage  in  virtue  over  vice — 
I  say  I  can  only  account  for  it  on  the  supposition 
that  that  evil  genius  has  at  last  made  up  its  mind 
to  forsake  him. 

And  I  may  add  that  another  extraordinary 
feature  of  the  judge's  conduct  in  this  canvass — 
made  more  extraordinary  by  this  incident — is, 
that  he  is  in  the  habit,  in  almost  all  the  speeches 
he  makes,  of  charging  falsehood  upon  his  adver- 
saries, mvself  and  others.  I  now  ask  whether  he 
is  able  to  find  in  anything  that  Judge  Trumbull, 
for  instance,  has  said,  or  in  anything  that  I  have 
said,  a  justification  at  all  compared  with  what  we 
have,  in  this  instance,  for  that  sort  of  vulgarity. 

I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  charging  as  a  mat- 
ter of  belief  on  my  part,  that,  in  the  introduction 
of  the  Nebraska  bill  into  Congress,  there  was  a 
conspiracy  to  make  slavery  perpetual  and  na- 
tional. I  have  arranged  from  time  to  time  the 
evidence  v/hich  establishes  and  proves  the  truth 
of  this  charge.  I  recurred  to  this  charge  at  Ot- 
tawa. I  shall  not  now  have  time  to  dwell  upon  it 
at  very  great  length ;  but  inasmuch  as  Judge 
Douglas  in  his  reply  of  half  an  hour  made  some 
points  upon  me  in  relation  to  it,  I  propose  notic- 
ing a  few  of  them. 

The  judge  insists  that,  in  the  first  speech  I 
made,  in  which  I  very  distinctly  made  that 
charge,  he  thought  for  a  good  while  I  was  in 
fun — that  I  was  playful — that  I  was  not  sincere 


1 84  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       I  Aug.  27 

about  it — and  that  he  only  grew  angry  and  some- 
what excited  when  he  found  that  I  insisted  upon 
it  as  a  matter  of  earnestness.  He  says  he  char- 
acterized it  as  a  falsehood  as  far  as  I  implicated 
his  moral  character  in  that  transaction.  Well, 
I  did  not  know,  till  he  presented  that  view,  that 
I  had  implicated  his  moral  character.  He  is  very 
much  in  the  habit,  when  he  argues  me  up  into  a 
position  I  never  thought  of  occupying,  of  very 
cozily  saying  he  has  no  doubt  Lincoln  is  ''con- 
scientious" in  saying  so.  He  should  remember 
that  I  did  not  know  but  what  he  was  altogether 
''conscientious"  in  that  matter.  I  can  conceive 
it  possible  for  m.en  to  conspire  to  do  a  good 
thing,  and  I  really  find  nothing  in  Judge  Doug- 
las's course  of  arguments  that  is  contrary  to  or 
inconsistent  with  his  belief  of  a  conspiracy  to 
nationalize  and  spread  slavery  as  being  a  good 
and  blessed  thing,  and  so  I  hope  he  w411  under- 
stand that  I  do  not  at  all  question  but  that  in  all 
this  matter  he  is  entirely  "conscientious." 

But  to  draw  your  attention  to  one  of  the  points 
I  made  in  this  case,  beginning  at  the  beginning. 
When  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  or  a 
short  time  afterward,  by  an  amendment,  I  be- 
lieve, it  was  provided  that  it  must  be  considered 
"the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to 
legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  or 
to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."*    I  have  called  his  attention  to  the  fact 

*  Douglas  proposed  this  amendment  February  7,  1854, 
two  weeks  after  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  was  introduced. 
Senator   Benton   of   Missouri   characterized  it   as  "a  little 


i858]  AT  FREEPORT  185 

that  when  he  and  some  others  began  arguing 
that  they  were  giving  an  increased  degree  of 
Hberty  to  the  people  in  the  Territories  over  and 
above  what  they  formerly  had  on  the  question  of 
slavery,  a  question  was  raised  whether  the  law 
was  enacted  to  give  such  unconditional  liberty 
to  the  people ;  and  to  test  the  sincerity  of  this 
mode  of  argument,  Mr.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  intro- 
duced an  amendment,  in  which  he  made  the  law 
— if  the  amendment  were  adopted — expressly 
declare  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  should 
have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  saw 
fit.  I  have  asked  attention  also  to  the  fact  that 
Judge  Douglas,  and  those  who  acted  with  him, 
voted  that  amendment  down,  notwithstanding  it 
expressed  exactly  the  thing  they  said  was  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  law.  I  have 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  subsequent 
times  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  been 
made  in  which  it  has  been  declared  that  a  Terri- 
torial Legislature  has  no  constitutional  right  to 
exclude  slavery.'''  Atid  I  have  argued  and  said 
that  for  men  who  did  intend  that  the  people  of 
the  Territory  should  have  the  right  to  exclude 
slavery  absolutely  and  unconditionally,  the 
voting  down  of  Chase's  amendment  is  wholly 
inexplicable.  It  is  a  puzzle — a  riddle.  But  I 
have  said  that  with  men  who  did  look  forward 
to  such  a  decision,  or  who  had  it  in  contempla- 
tion that  such  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
would  or  might  be  made,  the  voting  down  of 
that  amendment  would  be  perfectly  rational  and 

stump  speech  injected  into  the  belly  of  the  bill."  The 
bill,  as  amended,  repealed  in  effect  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise of  1820,  which  prohibited  slaverj'  north  of  latitude 
36°  30'. 

*  The  Dred  Scott  decision,  rendered  March  6,  1857. 


1 86  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

intelligible.  It  would  keep  Congress  from  com- 
ing in  collision  with  the  decision  when  it  was 
made.  Anybody  can  conceive  that  if  there  was 
an  intention  or  expectation  that  such  a  decision 
was  to  follow,  it  would  not  be  a  very  desirable 
party  attitude  to  get  into  for  the  Supreme  Court 
— all  or  nearly  all  its  members  belonging  to  the 
same  party — to  decide  one  way,  when  the  party 
in  Congress  had  decided  the  other  way.  Hence 
it  would  be  very  rational  for  men  expecting  such 
a  decision  to  keep  the  niche  in  that  law  clear  for 
it.  After  pointing  this  out,  I  tell  Judge  Douglas 
that  it  looks  to  me  as  though  here  was  the  reason 
why  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down.  I  tell 
him  that  as  he  did  it,  and  knows  why  he  did  it, 
if  it  was  done  for  a  reason  different  from  this, 
he  knows  what  that  reason  was,  and  can  tell  us 
what  it  was.  I  tell  him,  also,  it  will  be  vastly 
more  satisfactory  to  the  country  for  hrni  to  give 
some  other  plausible,  intelligible  reason'  why  it 
was  voted  down  than  to  stand  upon  his  dignity 
and  call  people  liars.  Weh,  on  Saturday  he  did 
make  his  answer,  and  what  do  you  think  it  was  ? 
He  says  if  I  had  only  taken  upon  myself  to  tell 
the  whole  truth  about  that  amendment  of 
Chase's,  no  explanation  would  have  been  neces- 
sary on  his  part — or  words  to  that  effect.  Now 
I  say  here  that  I  am  quite  unconscious  of  having 
suppressed  anything  material  to  the  case,  and  I 
am  very  frank  to  admit  if  there  is  any  sound 
reason  other  than  that  which  appeared  to  me 
material,  it  is  quite  fair  for  him  to  present  it. 
What  reason  does  he  propose?  That  when 
Chase  came  forward  with  his  amendment  ex- 
pressly authorizing  the  people  to  exclude  slavery 
from  the  limits  of  every  Territory,  General  Cass 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  187 

proposed  to  Chase,  if  he  (Chase)  would  add  to 
his  amendment  that  the  people  should  have  the 
power  to  introduce  or  exclude,  they  would  let 
it  go. 

This  is  absolutely  all  of  his  reply.  And  be- 
cause Chase  would  not  do  that  they  voted  his 
amendment  down.  Well,  it  turns  out,  I  believe, 
upon  examination,  that  General  Cass  took  some 
part  in  the  little  running  debate  upon  that 
amendment,  and  then  ran  away  and  did  not  vote 
on  it  at  all.  Is  not  that  the  fact?  So  confident, 
as  I  think,  was  General  Cass  that  there  was  a 
snake  somewhere  about,  he  chose  to  run  away 
from  the  whole  thing.  This  is  an  inference  I 
draw  from  the  fact  that  though  he  took  part  in 
the  debate  his  name  does  not  appear  in  the  ayes 
and  noes.  But  does  Judge  Douglas's  reply 
amount  to  a  satisfactory  answer?  [Cries  of 
"Yesr  ''Yesr  and  ''No;'  ''No."]  There  is 
some  little  difference  of  opinion  here.  But  I 
ask  attention  to  a  few  more  views  bearing  on  the 
question  of  whether  it  amounts  to  a  satisfactory 
answer.  The  men  who  were  determined  that 
that  amendment  should  not  get  into  the  bill,  and 
spoil  the  place  where  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
was  to  come  in,  sought  an  excuse  to  get  rid  of 
it  somewhere.  One  of  these  ways — one  of  these 
excuses — was  to  ask  Chase  to  add  to  his  pro- 
posed amendment  a  provision  that  the  people 
might  introduce  slavery  if  they  wanted  to.  They 
very  well  knew  Chase  would  do  no  such  thing — 
that  Mr.  Chase  was  one  of  the  men  differing 
from  them  on  the  broad  principle  of  his  insisting 
that  freedom  was  better  than  slavery — a  man 
who  would  not  consent  to  enact  a  law  penned 
with  his  own  hand,  by  which  he  was  made  to 


i88  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

recognize  slavery  on  the  one  hand  and  liberty 
on  the  other  as  precisely  equal ;  and  when  they 
insisted  on  his  doing  this,  they  very  well  knew 
they  insisted  on  that  which  he  would  not  for  a 
moment  think  of  doing,  and  that  they  were  only 
bluffing  him.  I  believe — I  have  not,  since  he 
made  his  answer,  had  a  chance  to  examine  the 
journals  or  Congressional  Globe,  and  therefore 
speak  from  memory — I  believe  the  state  of  the 
bill  at  that  time,  according  to  parliamentary 
rules,  was  such  that  no  member  could  propose 
an  additional  amendment  to  Chase's  amendment. 
I  rather  think  this  is  the  truth — the  judge  shakes 
his  head.  Very  well.  I  would  like  to  know  then, 
if  they  wanted  Chase's  amendment  fixed  over, 
why  somebody  else  could  not  have  offered  to  do 
it?  If  they  wanted  it  amended,  why  did  they  not 
offer  the  amendment  ?  Why  did  they  stand  there 
taunting  and  quibbling  at  Chase  ?  Why  did  they 
not  put  it  in  themselves  ?  But  to  put  it  on  the 
other  ground :  suppose  that  there  was  such  an 
amendment  oft'ered,  and  Chase's  was  an  amend- 
ment to  an  amendment ;  until  one  is  disposed  of 
by  parliamentary  law,  you  cannot  pile  another 
on.  Then  all  these  gentlemen  had  to  do  was  to 
vote  Chase's  on,  and  then,  in  the  amended  form 
in  which  the  whole  stood,  add  their  own  amend- 
ment to  it  if  they  wanted  to  put  it  in  that  shape. 
This  was  all  they  were  obliged  to  do,  and  the 
ayes  and  noes  show  that  there  were  thirty-six 
who  voted  it  down,  against  ten  who  voted  in 
favor  of  it.  The  thirty-six  held  entire  sway  and 
control.  They  could  in  some  form  or  other  have 
put  that  bill  in  the  exact  shape  they  wanted.  If 
there  was  a  rule  preventing  their  amending  it  at 
the  time,  they  could  pass  that,  and  then,  Chase's 


i858]  AT  FREEPORT  189 

amendment  being  merged,  put  it  in  the  shape 
they  wanted.  They  did  not  choose  to  do  so,  but 
they  went  into  a  quibble  with  Chase  to  get  him 
to  add  what  they  knew  he  would  not  add,  and 
because  he  would  not,  they  stand  upon  that 
flimsy  pretext  for  voting  down  what  they  argued 
was  the  meaning  and  intent  of  their  own  bill. 
They  left  room  thereby  for  this  Dred  Scott  deci- 
sion, which  goes  very  far  to  make  slavery  na- 
tional throughout  the  United  States. 

I  pass  one  or  two  points  I  have  because  my 
time  will  very  soon  expire,  but  I  must  be  allowed 
to  say  that  Judge  Douglas  recurs  again,  as  he  did 
upon  one  or  two  other  occasions,  to  the  enormity 
of  Lincoln — an  insignificant  individual  like  Lin- 
coln— upon  his  ipse  dixit  charging  a  conspiracy 
upon  a  large  number  of  members  of  Congress, 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  two  Presidents,  to  na- 
tionalize slavery.  I  want  to  say  that,  in  the  first 
place,  I  have  made  no  charge  of  this  sort  upon 
my  ipse  dixit.  I  have  only  arrayed  the  evidence 
tending  to  prove  it,  and  presented  it  to  the  un- 
derstanding of  others,  saying  what  I  think  it 
proves,  but  giving  you  the  means  of  judging 
whether  it  proves  it  or  not.  This  is  precisely 
what  I  have  done.  I  have  not  placed  it  upon  my 
ipse  dixit  at  all.  On  this  occasion,  I  wish  to  re- 
call his  attention  to  a  piece  of  evidence  which  I 
brought  forward  at  Ottawa  on  Saturday,  show- 
ing that  he  had  made  substantially  the  same 
charge  against  substantially  the  same  persons, 
excluding  his  dear  self  from  the  category.  I  ask 
him  to  give  some  attention  to  the  evidence  which 
I  brought  forward,  that  he  himself  had  discov- 
ered a  "fatal  blow  being  struck"  against  the  right 
of    the    people    to    exclude    slavery    from    their 


190  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

limits,  which  fatal  blow  he  assumed  as  in  evi- 
dence in  an  article  in  the  Washington  Union, 
published  "by  authority."  I  ask  by  whose  au- 
thority ?  He  discovers  a  similar  or  identical  pro- 
vision in  the  Lecompton  constitution.  Made  by 
whom?  The  framers  of  that  constitution.  Ad- 
vocated by  whom?  By  all  the  members  of  the 
party  in  the  nation,  who  advocated  the  introduc- 
tion of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Le- 
compton constitution. 

I  have  asked  his  -attention  to  the  evidence  that 
he  arrayed  to  prove  that  such  a  fatal  blow  was 
being  struck,  and  to  the  facts  which  he  brought 
forward  in  support  of  that  charge — being  identi- 
cal with  the  one  Vv^hich  he  thinks  so  villainous  in 
me.  He  pointed  it  not  at  a  newspaper  editor 
merely,  but  at  the  President  and  his  cabinet,  and 
the  members  of  Congress  advocating  the  Le- 
compton constitution,  and  those  framing  that  in- 
strument. I  must  again  be  permitted  to  remind 
him,  that  although  my  ipse  dixit  may  not  be  as 
great  as  his,  yet  it  somewhat  reduces  the  force 
of  his  calling  my  attention  to  the  enormity  of  my 
making  a  like  charge  against  him. 

Go  on.  Judge  Douglas. 


Mr.  Douglas's  Reply. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  The  silence  with  which  you 
have  listened  to  Mr.  Lincoln  during  his  hour  is  credita- 
ble to  this  vast  audience,  composed  of  men  of  various 
political  parties.  Nothing  is  more  honorable  to  any 
large  mass  of  people  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  a  fair 
discussion,  than  that  kind  and  respectful  attention  that 
is  yielded  not  only  to  your  political  friends,  but  to  those 
who  are  opposed  to  you  in  politics. 

I  am  glad  that  at  last  I  have  brought  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
4he  conclusion  that  he  had  better  define  his  position  on 


i858]  AT  FREEPORT  191 

certain  political  questions  to  which  I  called  his  attention 
at  Ottawa.  He  there  showed  no  disposition,  no  inclina- 
tion, to  answer  them.  I  did  not  present  idle  questions 
for  him  to  answer  merely  for  my  gratification.  I  laid 
the  foundation  for  those  interrogatories  by  showing  that 
they  constituted  the  platform  of  the  party  whose  nomi- 
nee he  is  for  the  Senate.  I  did  not  presume  that  I  had 
the  right  to  catechise  him  as  I  saw  proper,  unless  I 
showed  that  his  party,  or  a  majority  of  it,  stood  upon 
the  platform,  and  were  in  favor  of  the  propositions 
upon  which  my  questions  were  based.  I  desired  simply 
to  know,  inasmuch  as  he  had  been  nominated  as  the  first, 
last,  and  only  choice  of  his  party,  whether  he  concurred 
in  the  platform  which  that  party  had  adopted  for  its 
government.  In  a  few  moments  I  will  proceed  to  re- 
view the  answers  which  he  has  given  to  these  interroga- 
tories, but  in  order  to  relieve  his  anxiety  I  will  first 
respond  to  these  which  he  has  presented  to  me.  Mark 
you,  he  has  not  presented  interrogatories  which  have 
ever  received  the  sanction  of  the  party  with  which  I  am 
acting,  and  hence  he  has  no  other  foundation  for  them 
than  his  own  curiosity. 

First,  he  desires  to  know  if  the  people  of  Kansas 
shall  form  a  constitution  by  means  entirely  proper  and 
unobjectionable  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State,  before  they  have  the  requisite  population  for  a 
member  of  Congress,  whether  I  will  vote  for  that  ad- 
mission. Well,  now,  I  regret  exceedingly  that  he  did 
not  answer  that  interrogatory  himself  before  he  put  it 
to  me,  in  order  that  we  might  understand,  and  not  be 
left  to  infer,  on  which  side  he  is.  Mr.  Trumbull,  during 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  voted  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  against  the  admission  of  Oregon,  although 
a  free  State,  because  she  had  not  the  requisite  population 
for  a  member  of  Congress.  Mr.  Trumbull  would  not 
consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  let  a  State,  free  or 
slave,  come  into  the  Union  until  it  had  the  requisite 
population.  As  Mr.  Trumbull  is  in  the  field,  fighting 
for  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  Lincoln 
answer  his  own  question  and  tell  me  whether  he  is 
fighting  Trumbull  on  that  issue  or  not.  But  I  will  an- 
swer his  question.  In  reference  to  Kansas,  it  is  my 
opinion  that  as  she  has  population  enough  to  constitute 
a  slave  State,  she  has  people  enough  for  a  free  State. 
I  will  not  make  Kansas  an  exceptional  case  to  the  other 


192  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

States  of  the  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  sound  rule  of 
universal  application  to  require  a  Territory  to  contain 
the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  be- 
fore it  is  admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union.  I  made 
that  proposition  in  the  Senate  in  1856,  and  I  renewed 
it  during  the  last  session,  in  a  bill  providing  that  no 
Territory  of  the  United  States  should  form  a  constitu- 
tion and  apply  for  admission  until  it  had  the  requisite 
population.  On  another  occasion  I  proposed  that 
neither  Kansas,  nor  any  other  Territory,  should  be  ad- 
mitted until  it  had  the  requisite  population.  Congress 
did  not  adopt  any  of  my  propositions  containing  this 
general  rule,  but  did  make  an  exception  of  Kansas.  I 
will  stand  by  that  exception.  Either  Kansas  must  come 
in  as  a  free  State,  with  whatever  population  she  may 
have,  or  the  rule  must  be  applied  to  all  the  other  Terri- 
tories alike.  I  therefore  answer  at  once  that,  it  having 
been  decided  that  Kansas  has  people  enough  for  a  slave 
State,  I  hold  that  she  has  enough  for  a  free  State.  I 
hope  Mr.  Lincoln  is  satisfied  with  my  answer ;  and  now 
I  would  like  to  get  his  answer  to  his  own  interrogatory 
— whether  or  not  he  will  vote  to  admit  Kansas  before 
she  has  the  requisite  population.  I  want  to  know 
whether  he  will  vote  to  admit  Oregon  before  that  Terri- 
tory has  the  requisite  population.  Mr.  Trumbull  will 
not,  and  the  same  reason  that  commits  Mr.  Trumbull 
against  the  admission  of  Oregon  commits  him  against 
Kansas,  even  if  she  should  apply  for  admission  as  a 
free  State.  If  there  is  any  sincerity,  any  truth,  in  the 
argument  of  IMr.  Trumbull  in  the  Senate,  against  the 
admission  of  Oregon  because  she  had  not  93,420  people, 
although  her  population  was  larger  than  that  of  Kan- 
sas, he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  both 
Oregon  and  Kansas  until  they  have  93,420  inhabitants. 
I  would  like  ivIr.Lincoln  to  answer  this  question.  I  would 
like  him  to  take  his  own  medicine.  If  he  differs  with 
Mr.  Trumbull,  let  him  answer  his  argument  against  the 
admission  of  Oregon,  instead  of  poking  questions  at  me. 
The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
is :  Can  the  people  of  a  Territory  in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation 
of  a  State  constitution?  I  answer  emphatically,  as  Mr. 
Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a  hundred  times  from 
every  stump  in  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion  the  people 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT 


'93 


of  a  Territory  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery 
from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  con- 
stitution. Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered  that 
question  over  and  over  again.  He  heard  me  argue  the 
Nebraska  bill  on  that  principle  all  over  the  State  in 
1854,  in  1855,  and  in  1856,  and  he  has  no  excuse  for 
pretending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my  position  on  that 
question.  It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court 
may  hereafter  decide  as  to  the  abstract  question  whether 
slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory  under  the  Con- 
stitution, the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce 
it  or  exclude  it  as  they  please,  for  the  reason  that 
slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  anywhere  unless 
it  is  supported  by  local  regulations.  Those  police  regu- 
lations can  only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature, 
and  if  the  people  are  opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect 
representatives  to  that  body  who  will  by  unfriendl}'' 
legislation  effectually  prevent  the  introduction  of  it  into 
their  m.idst.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  their 
legislation  will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter 
what  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that 
abstract  question,  still  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a 
slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect  and  com- 
plete under  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln 
deems  my  answer  satisfactory  on  that  point.* 

*  This  was  the  avowal  that  Lincoln  had  been  playing 
for.  In  a  letter  to  Henry  Asbury,  written  July  31,  1858, 
the  day  the  arrangements  for  the  debates  had  been  con- 
cluded, Mr.  Lincoln  said :  "The  points  you  propose  to 
press  upon  Douglas  he  will  be  very  hard  to  get  up  to, 
but  I  think  you  labor  under  a  mistake  when  you  say  no 
one  cares  how  he  answers.  This  implies  that  it  is  equal 
with  him  whether  he  is  injured  here  or  at  the  South. 
This  is  a  mistake.  He  cares  nothing  for  the  South ;  he 
knows  he  is  alread}'  dead  there.  He  only  leans  Southward 
more  to  keep  the  Buchanan  party  from  growing  in  Illinois. 
You  shall  have  hard  work  to  get  him  directly  to  the  point 
whether  a  territorial  legislature  has  or  has  not  the  power 
to  exclude  slavery.  But  if  you  succeed  in  bringing  him 
to  it — though  he  will  be  compelled  to  say  it  possesses  no 
such  power — he  will  instantly  take  ground  that  slavery 
cannot  actually  exist  in  the  Territory  unless  the  people 
desire  it.  and  so  give  it  protection  by  territorial  legis- 
lation. If  this  offends  the  South,  he  will  let  it  oft'end 
them,  as  at  all  events  he  means  to  hold  on  to  his  chances 
in  Illinois." 

The  position   of  Douglas  became  known  as  the  "Free- 


194  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

In  this  connection  I  will  notice  the  charge  which  he 
has  introduced  in  relation  to  Mr.  Chase's  amendment. 
I  thought  that  I  had  chased  that  amendment  out  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  brain  at  Ottawa;  but  it  seems  still  to  haunt 
his  imagination,  and  he  is  not  yet  satisfied.  I  had  sup- 
posed that  he  would  be  ashamed  to  press  that  question 
further.  He  is  a  lawyer,  and  has  been  a  member  of 
Congress,  and  has  occupied  his  time  and  amused  you  by 
telling  you  about  parliamentary  proceedings.  He  ought 
to  have  known  better  than  to  try  to  palm  off  his  misera- 
ble impositions  upon  this  intelligent  audience.     The  Ne- 

port  theory  of  unfriendly  legislation."  Of  it  J.  F.  Rhodes, 
in  his  "History  of  the  United  States,"  remarks:  "This 
answer  attracted  more  attention  than  any  statement  of 
Douglas  during  the  campaign ;  and,  while  he  could  not 
have  been  elected  Senator  without  taking  that  position, 
the  enunciation  of  the  doctrine  was  an  insuperable 
obstacle  to  cementing  the  division  in  the  Democratic 
party." 

At  a  conference  of  Republican  leaders  the  night  before 
the  Freeport  debate  Lincoln  announced  his  intention  of 
forcing  this  declaration  from  Douglas.  He  was  counseled 
not  to  do  so,  since  the  theory  would  be  popular  with  the 
Illinois  voters  and  would  probably  win  the  Senatorship  for 
Douglas.  Lincoln  replied  that  the  South  would  never 
accept  the  man  who  enunciated  the  doctrine  as  President. 
"I  am  after  larger  game,"  he  said;  "the  battle  of  i860 
is  worth   a   hvmdred   of   this." 

Events  fulfilled  Lincoln's  prophecy.  The  South  accused 
Douglas  of  violating  a  bargain  with  it.  Senator  Judah  P. 
Benjamin,  of  Louisiana,  said  (in  a  speech  in  the  Senate, 
May  22,   i860)  : 

We  accuse  him  [Douglas]  for  this:  to  wit,  that  having 
bargained  with  us  upon  a  point  upon  which  we  were  at 
issue  that  it  shotild  be  considered  a  judicial  point ;  that 
he  would  abide  by  the  decision  ;  that  he  wovild  act  under 
the  decision,  and  consider  it  a  doctrine  of  the  party ; 
that  having  said  that  to  us  here  in  the  Senate,  he  went 
home,  and  under  the  stress  of  a  local  election,  his  knees 
gave  way ;  his  whole  person  trembled.  His  adversary 
stood  upon  principle  and  was  beaten ;  and  lo  !  he  is  the 
candidate  of  a  mightv  party  for  the  Presidency  of  the 
United  States.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  faltered.  He 
got  the  prize  for  which  he  faltered ;  but  lo !  the  grand 
prize  of  his  ambition  to-day  slips  from  his  grasp  because 
of  his  faltering  in  his  former  contest,  and  his  success 
in  the  canvass  for  the  Senate,  purchased  for  an  ignoble 
prize,  has  cost  him  the  loss  of  the  Presidency  of  the 
United   States. 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  195 

braska  bill  provided  that  the  legislative  power  and  au- 
thority of  the  said  Territory  should  extend  to  all  right- 
ful subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  organic 
act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  did 
not  make  any  exception  as  to  slavery,  but  gave  all  the 
power  that  it  was  possible  for  Congress  to  give,  without 
violating  the  Constitution,  to  the  territorial  legislature, 
with  no  exception  or  limitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
at  all.  The  language  of  that  bill  which  I  have  quoted 
gave  the  full  power  and  the  full  authority  over  the 
subject  of  slavery,  afhrmatively  and  negatively,  to  intro- 
duce it  or  exclude  it,  so  far  as  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  would  permit.  What  more  could  Mr. 
Chase  give  by  his  amendment?  Nothing.  He  offered 
his  amendment  for  the  identical  purpose  for  which  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  using  it,  to  enable  demagogues  in  the  country 
to  try  and  deceive  the  people. 

His  amendment  was  to  this  effect.  It  provided  that 
the  legislature  should  have  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery;  and  General  Cass  suggested,  "Why  not  give 
the  power  to  introduce  as  well  as  exclude?"  The  an- 
swer was,  they  have  the  power  already  in  the  bill  to  do 
both.  Chase  was  afraid  his  amendment  would  be 
adopted  if  he  put  the  alternative  proposition  and  so 
make  it  fair  both  ways,  but  would  not  yield.  He  offered 
it  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  rejected.  He  offered  it, 
as  he  has  himself  avowed  over  and  over  again,  simply 
to  make  capital  out  of  it  for  the  stump.  He  expected 
that  it  would  be  capital  for  small  politicians  in  the 
country,  and  that  they  would  make  an  effort  to  deceive 
the  people  with  it ;  and  he  was  not  mistaken,  for  Lin- 
.:oln  is  carrying  out  the  plan  admirably.  Lincoln  knows 
that  the  Nebraska  bill,  without  Chase's  amendment, 
gave  all  the  power  which  the  Constitution  would  permit. 
Could  Congress  confer  any  more?  Could  Congress  go 
beyond  the  Constitution  of  the  country?  We  gave  all 
— a  full  grant,  with  no  exception  in  regard  to  slavery 
one  way  or  the  other.  We  left  that  question  as  we  left 
all  others,  to  be  decided  by  the  people  for  themselves, 
just  as  they  pleased.  I  will  not  occupy  my  time  on  this 
question.  I  have  argued  it  before  all  over  Illinois.  I 
have  argued  it  in  this  beautiful  city  of  Freeport ;  I 
have  argued  it  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and 
the  West,  avowing  the  same  sentiments  and  the  same 
principles.     I  have  not  been  afraid  to  avow  my  senti- 


196  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  2? 

ments  up  here  for  fear  I   would  be  trotted  down  into 
Egypt. 

The  third  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  presented  is,  if 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide 
that  a  State  of  this  Union  cannot  exclude  slavery  from 
its  own  limits,  will  I  submit  to  it?  I  am  amazed  that 
Lincoln  should  ask  such  a  question.  [''A  schoolboy 
knozvs  better."]  Yes,  a  schoolboy  does  know  better. 
Mr.  Lincoln's  object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  knows  that  there  never  was  but 
one  man  in  America  claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence 
or  decency,  who  ever  for  a  moment  pretended  such  a 
thing.  It  is  true  that  the  Washington  Union,  in  an 
article  published  on  the  17th  of  last  December,  did  put 
forth  that  doctrine,  and  I  denounced  the  article  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  in  a  speech  which  Mr.  Lincoln  now 
pretends  was  against  the  President.  The  Union  had 
claimed  that  slavery  had  a  right  to  go  into  the  free 
States,  and  that  any  provision  in  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  the  free  States  to  the  contrary  was  null  and 
void.  I  denounced  it  in  the  Senate,  as  I  said  before, 
and  I  was  the  first  man  who  did.  Lincoln's  friends, 
Trumbull,  and  Seward,  and  Hale,  and  Wilson,  and  the 
whole  Black  Republican  side  of  the  Senate  were  silent. 
They  left  it  to  me  to  denounce  it.  And  what  was  the 
reply  made  to  me  on  that  occasion?  Mr.  Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  got  up  and  undertook  to  lecture  me  on  the 
ground  that  I  ought  not  to  have  deemed  the  article  wor- 
thy of  notice,  and  ought  not  to  have  replied  to  it ;  that 
there  was  not  one  man,  woman,  or  child  south  of  the 
Potomac,  in  any  slave  State,  who  did  not  repudiate  any 
such  pretension.  Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  that  reply 
was  made  on  the  spot,  and  yet  now  he  asks  this  ques- 
tion. He  might  as  well  ask  me,  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln 
should  steal  a  horse,  would  I  sanction  it?  and  it  would 
be  as  genteel  in  me  to  ask  him,  in  the  event  he  stole  a 
horse,  what  ought  to  be  done  with  him.  He  casts  an 
imputation  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  by  supposing  that  they  would  violate  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  I  tell  him  that  such  a 
thing  is  not  possible.  It  would  be  an  act  of  moral 
treason  that  no  man  on  the  bench  could  ever  descend  to. 
Mr.  Lincoln  himself  would  never  in  his  partisan  feelings 
so  far  forget  what  was  right  as  to  be  guilty  of  such  an 
act. 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  197 

The  fourth  question  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is :  Are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  in  disregard  as 
to  how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the  Union  on  the 
slavery  question?  This  question  is  very  ingeniously 
and  cunningly  put. 

The  Black  Republican  creed  lays  it  down  expressly, 
that  under  no  circumstances  shall  we  acquire  any  more 
territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited  in  the  country. 
I  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  that  propo- 
sition. Are  you  [addressing  Mr.  Lincoln]  opposed  to 
the  acquisition  of  any  more  territory,  under  any  circum- 
stances, unless  slavery  is  prohibited  in  it?  That  he  does 
not  like  to  answer.  When  I  ask  him  whether  he  stands 
up  to  that  article  in  the  platform  of  his  party,  he  turns, 
Yankee-fashion,  and,  without  answering  it,  asks  me 
whether  I  am  in  favor  of  acquiring  territory  without 
regard  to  how  it  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery 
question.  I  answer  that  whenever  it  becomes  necessary, 
in  our  growth  and  progress,  to  acquire  more  territory, 
that  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  without  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery,  and  when  we  have  acquired  it,  I  will 
leave  the  people  free  to  do  as  they  please,  either  to  make 
it  slave  or  free  territory,  as  they  prefer.  It  is  idle  to  tell 
me  or  you  that  we  have  territory  enough.  Our  fathers 
supposed  that  we  had  enough  when  our  territory  ex- 
tended to  the  Mississippi  River,  but  a  few  years'  growth 
and  expansion  satisfied  them  that  we  needed  more,  and 
the  Louisiana  territory,  from  the  west  branch  of  the 
Mississippi  to  the  British  possessions,  was  acquired. 
Then  we  acquired  Oregon,  then  California  and  New 
Mexico.  We  have  enough  now  for  the  present,  but  this 
is  a  young  and  a  growing  nation.  It  swarms  as  often  as 
a  hive  of  bees,  and  as  new  swarms  are  turned  out  each 
year,  there  must  be  hives  in  which  they  can  gather  and 
make  their  honey.  In  less  than  fifteen  years,  if  the  same 
progress  that  has  distinguished  this  country  for  the  last 
fifteen  years  continues,  every  foot  of  vacant  land  be- 
tween this  and  the  Pacific  ocean,  owned  by  the  United 
States,  will  be  occupied.  Will  you  not  continue  to  in- 
crease at  the  end  of  fifteen  years  as  well  as  now?  I  tell 
you,  increase,  and  multiply,  and  expand,  is  the  law  of 
this  nation's  existence.  You  cannot  limit  this  great  re- 
public by  mere  boundary  lines,  saying,  "Thus  far  shalt 
thou  go,  and  no  further."  Any  one  of  you  gentlemen 
might  as  well  say  to  a  son  twelve  years  old  that  he  is 


198 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 


big  enough,  and  must  not  grow  any  larger,  and  in  order 
to  prevent  his  growth  put  a  hoop  around  him  to  keep 
him  to  his  present  size.  V/hat  would  be  the  result? 
Either  the  hoop  must  burst  and  be  rent  asunder,  or  the 
child  must  die.  So  it  would  be  with  this  great  nation. 
With  our  natural  increase,  growing  with  a  rapidity 
unknown  in  any  other  part  of  the  globe,  with  the  tide 
of  immigration  that  is  fleeing  from  despotism  in  the  Old 
World  to  seek  refuge  in  our  own,  there  is  a  constant 
torrent  pouring  into  this  country  that  requires  more 
land,  more  territory  upon  which  to  settle,  and  just  as 
fast  as  our  interests  and  our  destiny  require  additional 
territory  in  the  North,  in  the  South,  or  on  the  islands 
of  the  ocean,  I  am  for  it,  and  when  we  acquire  it,  will 
leave  the  people,  according  to  the  Nebraska  bill,  free  to 
do  as  they  please  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  every 
other  question. 

I  trust  now  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  deem  himself  an- 
swered on  his  four  points.  He  racked  his  brain  so  much 
in  devising  these  four  questions  that  he  exhausted  him- 
self, and  had  not  strength  enough  to  invent  others.  As 
soon  as  he  is  able  to  hold  a  council  with  his  advisors, 
Lovejoy,  Farnsworth,  and  Fred  Douglass,  he  will  frame 
and  propound  others.  ["Good,  good."]  You  Black  Re- 
publicans who  say  good,  I  have  no  doubt  think  that  they 
are  all  good  men.  I  have  reason  to  recollect  that  some 
people  in  this  county  think  that  Fred  Douglass  is  a 
very  good  man.  The  last  time  I  came  here  to  make  a 
speech,  while  talking  from  the  stand  to  you.  people  of 
Freeport,  as  I  am  doing  to-day,  I  sav/  a  carriage,  and  a 
magnificent  one  it  was,  drive  up  and  take  a  position  on 
the  outside  of  the  crowd;  a  beautiful  young  lady  was 
sitting  on  the  box-seat,  whilst  Fred  Douglass  and  her 
mother  reclined  inside,  and  the  owner  of  the  carriage 
acted  as  driver.  I  saw  this  in  your  own  town.  ['IVJiat 
of  it?"]  All  I  have  to  say  of  it  is  this,  that  if  you  Black 
Republicans  think  that  the  negro  ought  to  be  on  a  social 
equality  with  your  wives  and  daughters,  and  ride  in  a 
carriage  with  your  wife,  whilst  you  drive  the  team,  you 
have  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  I  am  told  that  one  of 
Fred  Douglass's  kinsmen,  another  rich  black  negro,  is 
now  traveling  in  this  part  of  the  State  making  speeches 
for  his  friend  Lincoln  as  the  champion  of  black  men. 
{"What  have  you  to  say  against  it?"]  All  I  have  to 
say  on  that  subject  is,  that  those  of  you  who  believe  that 


1S58]  AT  FREEPORT  199 

the  negro  is  your  equal  and  ought  to  be  on  an  equality 
with  you  socially,  politically,  and  legally,  have  a  right 
to  entertain  those  opinions,  and  of  course  will  vote  for 
Mr.  Lincoln. 

I  have  a  word  to  say  on  Mr.  Lincoln's  answer  to 
the  interrogatories  contained  in  my  speech  at  Ottawa, 
and  which  he  has  pretended  to  reply  to  here  to-day. 
Mr.  Lincoln  makes  a  great  parade  of  the  fact  that  I 
quoted  a  platform  as  having  been  adopted  by  the  Black 
Republican  party  at  Springfield  in  1854,  which,  it  turns 
out,  was  adopted  at  another  place.  Mr.  Lincoln  loses 
sight  of  the  thing  itself  in  his  ecstasies  over  the  mis- 
take I  made  in  stating  the  place  where  it  was  done. 
He  thinks  that  that  platform  was  not  adopted  on  the 
right  "spot." 

When  I  put  the  direct  questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
ascertain  whether  he  now  stands  pledged  to  that  creed 
— to  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law, 
a  refusal  to  admit  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union 
even  if  the  people  want  them,  a  determination  to  apply 
the  Wilmot  proviso,  not  only  to  all  the  territory  we 
now  have,  but  all  that  we  may  hereafter  acquire — he 
refused  to  answer,  and  his  followers  say,  in  excuse, 
that  the  resolutions  upon  which  I  based  my  interroga- 
tories were  not  adopted  at  the  right  "spot."  Lincoln 
and  his  political  friends  are  great  on  "spots."  In 
Congress,  as  a  representative  of  this  State,  he  declared 
the  Mexican  war  to  be  unjust  and  infamous,  and  would 
not  support  it,  or  acknowledge  his  own  country  to  be 
right  in  the  contest,  because  he  said  that  American 
blood  was  not  shed  on  American  soil  in  the  right 
"spot."  *  And  now  he  cannot  answer  the  questions 
I  put  to  him  at  Ottawa  because  the  resolutions  I  read 
were  not  adopted  at  the  right  "spot."  It  may  be 
possible  that  I  was  led  into  an  error  as  to  the  spot  on 
which  the  resolutions  I  then  read  were  proclaimed, 
but  I  was  not,  and  am  not  in  error  as  to  the  fact  of 
their  forming  the  basis  of  the  creed  of  the  Republican 
party  when  that  party  was  first  organized.  I  will  state 
to  you  the  evidence  I  had,  and  upon  which  I  relied  for 
my  statement  that  the  resolutions  in  question  were 
adopted  at    Springfield   on  the   5th   of   October,    1854. 

*  See    the    "Spot    Resolutions,"    page    113,    volume   two, 
present  edition. 


200  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

Although  I  was  aware  that  such  resolutions  had  been 
passed  in  this  district,  and  nearly  all  the  northern 
congressional  districts  and  county  conventions,  I  had 
not  noticed  whether  or  not  they  had  been  adopted  by 
any  State  convention.  In  1856  a  debate  arose  in  Con- 
gress between  Major  Thomas  L.  Harris,  of  the  Spring- 
field district,  and  Mr.  Norton,  of  the  Joliet  district, 
on  political  matters  connected  with  our  State,  in  the 
course  of  which  Major  Harris  quoted  those  resolu- 
tions as  having  been  passed  by  the  first  Republican 
State  convention  that  ever  assembled  in  Illinois.  I 
knew  that  Major  Harris  was  remarkable  for  his  ac- 
curacy, that  he  was  a  very  conscientious  and  sincere 
man,  and  I  also  noticed  that  Norton  did  not  question 
the  accuracy  of  this  statement.  I  therefore  took  it  for 
granted  that  it  was  so,  and  the  other  day  when  I  con- 
cluded to  use  the  resolutions  at  Ottawa,  I  wrote  to 
Charles  H.  Lanphier,  editor  of  the  State  Register,  at 
Springfield,  calling  his  attention  to  them,  telling  him 
that  I  had  been  informed  that  Major  Harris  was  lying 
sick  at  Springfield,  and  desiring  him  to  call  upon  him 
and  ascertain  all  the  facts  concerning  the  resolutions, 
the  time  and  the  place  where  they  were  adopted.  In 
reply  Mr.  Lanphier  sent  me  two  copies  of  his  paper, 
which  I  have  here.  The  first  is  a  copy  of  the  State 
Register,  published  at  Springfield,  Mr.  Lincoln's  own 
town,  on  the  i6th  of  October,  1854,  only  eleven  days 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention,  from  which  I 
desire  to  read  the  following: 


During  the  late  discussions  in  this  city,  Lincoln  made 
a  speech,  to  which  Judge  Douglas  replied  :  In  Lincoln's 
speech  he  took  the  broad  ground  that,  according  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  the  whites  and  blacks  are 
equal.  From  this  he  drew  the  conclusion,  which  he  sev- 
eral times  repeated,  that  the  white  man  had  no  right 
to  pass  laws  for  the  government  of  the  black  man  without 
the  nigger's  consent.  This  speech  of  Lincoln's  was  heard 
and  applauded  by  all  the  Abolitionists  assembled  in  Spring- 
field. So  soon  as  Mr.  Lincoln  was  done  speaking.  Mr. 
Codding  arose  and  requested  all  the  delegates  to  the 
Black  Republican  convention  to  withdraw  into  the  Senate 
chamber.  They  did  so,  and  after  long  deliberation,  they 
laid  down  the  following  Abolition  platform  as  the  plat- 
form on  which  they  stood.  We  call  the  particular  atten- 
tion of  our  readers  to  it. 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  201 

Then  follows  the  identical  platform,  word  for  word, 
which  I  read  at  Ottawa.  Now,  that  was  published  in 
Mr.  Lincoln's  own  town,  eleven  days  after  the  conven- 
tion was  held,  and  it  has  remained  on  record  up  to 
this  day  never  contradicted. 

When  I  quoted  the  resolutions  at  Ottawa  and  ques- 
tioned Mr.  Lincoln  in  relation  to  them,  he  said  that 
his  name  was  on  the  committee  that  reported  them, 
but  he  did  not  serve,  nor  did  he  think  he  served,  be- 
cause he  was,  or  thought  he  was,  in  Tazewell  County 
at  the  time  the  convention  was  in  session.  He  did  not 
deny  that  the  resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Spring- 
field convention.  He  did  not  know  better,  and  evi- 
dently thought  that  they  were,  but  afterward  his  friends 
declared  that  they  had  discovered  that  they  varied  in 
some  respects  from  the  resolutions  passed  by  that 
convention.  I  have  shown  you  that  I  had  good  evi- 
dence for  believing  that  the  resolutions  had  been 
passed  at  Springfield.  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have 
known  better;  but  not  a  word  is  said  about  his 
ignorance  on  the  subject,  whilst  I,  notwithstanding  the 
circumstances,  am  accused  of  forgery. 

Now,  I  will  show  you  that  if  I  have  made  a  mistake 
as  to  the  place  where  these  resolutions  were  adopted — 
and  when  I  get  down  to  Springfield  I  will  investigate 
the  matter  and  see  whether  or  not  I  have — the  princi- 
ples they  enunciate  were  adopted  as  the  Black  Re- 
publican platform  {"White,  white"],  in  the  various 
counties  and  congressional  districts  throughout  the 
north  end  of  the  State  in  1854.  This  platform  was 
adopted  in  nearly  every  county  that  gave  a  Black  Re- 
publican majority  for  the  legislature  in  that  year,  and 
here  is  a  man  [pointing  to  Mr.  Denio,  who  sat  on  the 
stand  near  Deacon  Bross]  who  knows  as  well  as  any 
living  man  that  it  was  the  creed  of  the  Black  Re- 
publican party  at  that  time.  I  would  be  willing  to  call 
Denio  as  a  witness,  or  any  other  honest  man  belonging 
to  that  party.  I  will  now  read  the  resolutions  adopted 
at  the  Rockford  convention  on  the  30th  of  August, 
1854,  which  nominated  Washburne  for  Congress.  You 
elected  him  on  the  following  platform: 

Resolved,  That  the  continued  and  increasing  aggressions 
of  slavery  in  our  country  are  destructive  of  the  be3t  rights 
of   a    free   people,    and    that    such    aggressions    cannot   be 


202  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        EAug.  27 

successfully  resisted  without  the  united  political  action  of 
all   good   men. 

Resolved.  That  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  hold 
in  their  hands  peaceful,  constitutional,  and  efficient  remedy 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  slave  power,  the  ballot- 
box;  and  if  that  remedy  is  boldly  and  wisely  applied,  the 
principles  of  liberty  and  eternal  justice  will  be  established. 

Resolved,  That  we  accept  this  issue  forced  upon  us  by 
the  slave  power,  and,  in  defense  of  freedom,  will  cooperate 
and  be  known  as  Republicans,  pledged  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  following  purposes  : 

To  bring  the  administration  of  the  government  back  to 
the  control  of  first  principles ;  to  restore  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  to  the  position  of  free  Territories ;  to  repeal 
and  entirelj^  abrogate  the  fugitive-slave  law ;  to  restrict 
slavery  to  those  States  in  which  it  exists  ;  to  prohibit  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union ;  to 
exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the 
General  Government  has  exclusive  jurisdiction,  and  to 
resist  the  acquisition  of  any  more  Territories  unless  the 
introduction  of  slavery  therein  forever  shall  have  been 
prohibited. 

Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will 
use  such  constitutional  and  lawful  means  as  shall  seem 
best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we  will 
support  no  .man  for  office  under  the  General  or  State 
Government  who  is  not  positively  committed  to  the  sup- 
port of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal  character  and 
conduct  is  not  a  guaranty  that  he  is  reliable  and  shall 
abjure  all  party  allegiance  and  ties. 

Resolved,  That  we  cordially  invite  persons  of  all  former 
political  parties  whatever  in  favor  of  the  object  expressed 
in  the  above  resolutions  to  unite  with  us  in  carrying  them 
into   effect. 

Well,  you  think  that  is  a  very  good  platform,  do  you 
not?  If  yon  do,  if  you  approve  it  now,  ancj  think  it 
is  all  right,  you  will  not  join  with  those  men  who  say 
that  I  libel  you  by  calling  these  your  principles,  will 
you?  Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  complains;  Mr.  Lincoln 
charges  that  I  did  you  and  him  injustice  by  saying  that 
this  was  the  platform  of  your  party.  I  am  told  that 
Washburne  made  a  speech  in  Galena  last  night,  in 
which  he  abused  me  awfully  for  bringing  to  light  this 
platform,  on  which  he  was  elected  to  Congress.  He 
thought  that  you  had  forgotten  it,  as  he  and  Mr.  Lin 
coin  desire  to.  He  did  not  deny  but  that  you  had 
adopted  it,  and  that  he  had  subscribed  to  and  was 
pledged  by  it,  but  he  did  not  think  it  was  fair  to  call 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  203 

it    up    and   remind   the   people   that    it    was    their   plat- 
form. 

But  I  am  glad  to  find  that  you  are  more  honest  in 
your  Abolitionism  than  your  leaders,  by  avowing  that 
it  is  your  platform,  and  right  in  your  opinion. 

In  the  adoption  of  that  platform,  you  not  only  de- 
clared that  you  would  resist  the  admission  of  any 
more  slave  States,  and  work  for  the  repeal  of  the 
fugitive-slave  law,  but  you  pledged  yourself  not  to  vote 
for  any  man  for  State  or  Federal  offices  who  was  not 
committed  to  these  principles.  You  were  thus  com- 
mitted. Similar  resolutions  to  those  were  adopted  in 
your  county  convention  here;  and  now  with  your  ad- 
missions that  they  are  your  platform  and  embody  your 
sentiments  new  as  they  did  then,  what  do  you  think  of 
Mr.  Lincoln,  your  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate,  who  is  attempting  to  dodge  the  responsibility 
of  this  platform,  because  it  was  not  adopted  in  the 
right  spot?  I  thought  thai  it  was  adopted  in  Spring- 
field, but  it  turns  out  it  was  not,  that  it  was  adopted 
at  Rockford,  and  in  the  various  counties  which  com- 
prise this  congressional  district.  When  I  get  into  the 
next  district,  I  will  show  that  the  same  platform  was 
adopted  there,  and  so  on  through  the  State,  until  I 
nail  the  responsibility  of  it  upon  the  back  of  the  Black 
Republican  party  throughout  the  State.  [A  voice: 
"Couldn't  you  modify  and  call  it  brozvnf"]  Not  a  bit. 
I  thought  that  you  were  becoming  a  little  brown  when 
your  members  in  Congress  voted  for  the  Crittenden- 
Montgomery  bill,  but  since  you  have  backed  out  from 
that  position,  and  gone  back  to  Abolitionism,  you  are 
black  and  not  brown. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  shown  you  what  your  platform  was 
in  1854.  You  still  adhere  to  it.  The  same  platform 
was  adopted  by  nearly  all  the  counties  where  the  Black 
Republican  party  had  a  majority  in  1854.  I  wish  now 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  action  of  your  representa- 
tives in  the  legislature  when  they  assembled  together  at 
Springfield.  In  the  first  place  you  must  remember  that 
this  was  the  organization  of  a  new  party.  It  is  so  de- 
clared in  the  resolutions  themselves,  which  say  that  you 
are  going  to  dissolve  all  old  party  ties  and  call  the  new 
party  Republican.  The  Old  Whig  party  was  to  have 
its  throat  cut  from  ear  to  ear,  and  the  Democratic  party 
was   to   be    annihilated   and   blotted    out    of   existence, 


204  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

whilst  in  lieu  of  these  parties  the  Black  Republican 
party  was  to  be  organized  on  this  Abolition  platform. 
You  know  who  the  chief  leaders  were  in  breaking  up 
and  destroying  these  two  great  parties.  Lincoln  on  the 
one  hand  and  Trumbull  on  the  other,  being  disappointed 
politicians,  and  having  retired  or  been  driven  to  ob- 
scurity by  an  outraged  constituency  because  of  their 
political  sins,  formed  a  scheme  to  Abolitionize  the  two 
parties,  and  lead  the  old-line  Whigs  and  old-line  Demo- 
crats captive,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition 
camp.  Giddings,  Chase,  Fred  Douglass,  and  Love  joy 
were  here  to  christen  them  whenever  they  were  brought 
in.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  dissolve  the  old-line  Whig 
party.  Clay  was  dead,  and  although  the  sod  was  not 
yet  green  on  his  grave,  this  man  undertook  to  bring  into 
disrepute  those  great  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
with  which  Clay  and  Webster  were  identified.  Up  to 
1854  the  Old  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  had 
stood  on  a  common  platform  so  far  as  this  slavery  ques- 
tion was  concerned.  You  Whigs  and  we  Democrats 
differed  about  the  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the 
specie  circular,  and  the  subtreasury,  but  we  agreed  on 
this  slavery  question  and  the  true  mode  of  preserving 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union.  The  compromise 
measures  of  1850  were  introduced  by  Clay,  were  de- 
fended by  Webster,  and  supported  by  Cass,  and  were 
approved  by  Fillmore,  and  sanctioned  by  the  national 
men  of  both  parties.  They  constituted  a  common  plank 
upon  which  both  Whigs  and  Democrats  stood.  In  1852 
the  Whig  party,  in  its  last  national  convention  at  Balti- 
more, indorsed  and  approved  these  measures  of  Clay,  and 
so  did  the  national  convention  of  the  Democratic  party 
held  that  same  year.  Thus  the  old-line  Whigs  and  the 
old-line  Democrats  stood  pledged  to  the  great  principle 
of  self-government,  which  guarantees  to  the  people  of 
each  Territory  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question 
for  themselves.  In  1854,  after  the  death  of  Clay  and 
Webster,  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  part  of  the  Whigs,  under- 
took to  Abolitionize  the  Whig  party  by  dissolving  it, 
transferring  the  members  into  the  Abolition  camp  and 
making  them  train  under  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass, 
Lovejoy,  Chase,  Farnsworth,  and  other  Abolition  lead- 
ers. Trumbull  undertook  to  dissolve  the  Democratic 
party  by  taking  old  Democrats  into  the  Abolition  camp. 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  aided  in  his  efforts  by  many  leading 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  205 

Whigs  throughout  the  State — your  member  of  Congress, 
Mr.  Washburne,  bemg  one  of  the  most  active.  Trum- 
bull was  aided  by  many  renegades  from  the  Democratic 
party,  among  whom  were  John  Wentworth,  Tom 
Turner,  and  others  with  whom  you  are  familiar. 

Mr,  Turner,  who  was  one  of  the  moderators,  here 
interposed,  and  said  that  he  had  drawn  the  resolutions 
which  Senator  Douglas  had  read. 

Mr.  Douglas :  Yes,  and  Turner  says  that  he  drew 
these  resolutions.  [''Hurrah  for  Turner!"  "Hurrah 
for  Douglas!"]  That  is  right;  gi^e  Turner  cheers  for 
drawing  the  resolutions,  if  you  approve  them.  If  he 
drew  those  resolutions,  he  will  not  deny  that  they  are 
the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party, 

Mr.  Turner :  They  are  our  creed  exactly. 

Mr.  Douglas :  And  yet  Lincoln  denies  that  he  stands 
on  them.  Mr.  Turner  says  that  the  creed  of  the  Black 
Republican  party  is  the  admission  of  no  more  slave 
States,  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  declares  that  he  would  not 
like  to  be  placed  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to 
vote  for  them.  All  I  have  to  say  to  friend  Lincoln  is, 
that  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  danger  of  his  being 
placed  in  such  a  position.  As  Mr.  Lincoln  would  be 
very  sorry  to  be  placed  in  such  an  embarrassing  position 
as  to  be  obliged  to  vote  on  the  admission  of  any  more 
slave  States,  I  propose,  out  of  mere  kindness,  to  relieve 
him  from  any  such  necessity.  When  the  bargain  be- 
tween Lincoln  and  Trumbull  was  completed  for  Aboli- 
tionizing  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  they 
"spread"  over  the  State,  Lincoln  still  pretending  to  be 
an  old-line  Whig,  in  order  to  "rope  in"  the  Whigs,  and 
Trumbull  pretending  to  be  as  good  a  Democrat  as  he 
ever  was,  in  order  to  coax  the  Democrats  over  into  the 
Abolition  ranks.  They  played  the  part  that  "decoy 
ducks"  play  down  on  the  Potomac  River,  In  that  part 
of  the  country  they  make  artificial  ducks,  and  put  them 
on  the  water  in  places  where  the  wild  ducks  are  to  be 
found,  for  the  purpose  of  decoying  them.  Well,  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull  played  the  part  of  these  "decoy  ducks," 
and  deceived  enough  old-line  Whigs  and  old-line  Dem- 
ocrats to  elect  a  Black  Republican  legislature.  When 
that  legislature  met,  the  first  thing  it  did  was  to  elect  as 
Speaker  of  the  House  the  very  man  who  is  now  boasting 
that  he  wrote  the  Abolition  platform  on  which  Lincoln 
,will  not  stand.    I  want  to  know  of  Mr.  Turner  whether 


2o6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

or  not,  when  he  was  elected,  he  was  a  good  embodiment 
of  Republican  principles? 

Mr.  Turner :  I  hope  I  was  then  and  am  now. 

Mr.  Douglas :  He  swears  that  he  hopes  he  was  then 
and  is  now.  He  wrote  that  Black  Republican  platform, 
and  is  satisfied  with  it  now.  I  admire  and  acknowledge 
Turner's  honesty.  Every  man  of  you  knows  what  he 
sa3^s  about  these  resolutions  being  the  platform  of  the 
Black  Republican  party  is  true,  and  you  also  know  that 
each  one  of  these  men  who  are  shuffling  and  trying  to 
deny  it  is  only  trying  to  cheat  the  people  out  of  their 
votes  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  them  still  more  after 
the  election.  I  propose  to  trace  this  thing  a  little 
further,  in  order  that  you  can  see  what  additional  evi- 
dence there  is  to  fasten  this  revolutionary  platform  upon 
the  Black  Republican  party.  When  the  legislature  as- 
sembled, there  was  a  United  States  senator  to  elect  in 
the  place  of  General  Shields,  and  before  they  proceeded 
to  ballot,  Lovejoy  insisted  on  laying  down  certain  prin- 
ciples by  which  to  govern  the  party.  It  has  been  pub- 
lished to  the  world  and  satisfactorily  proven  that  there 
was,  at  the  time  the  alliance  was  made  between  Trum- 
bull and  Lincoln  to  Abolitionize  the  two  parties,  an 
agreement  that  Lincoln  should  take  Shields' s  place  in 
the  L^nited  States  Senate,  and  Trumbull  should  have 
mine  so  soon  as  they  could  conveniently  get  rid  of  me. 
When  Lincoln  was  beaten  for  Shields's  place,  in  a  man- 
ner I  will  refer  to  in  a  few  minutes,  he  felt  very  sore 
and  restive ;  his  friends  grumbled,  and  some  of  them 
came  out  and  charged  that  the  most  infamous  treachery 
had  been  practised  against  him ;  that  the  bargain  was 
that  Lincoln  was  to  have  Shields's  place,  and  Trum- 
bull was  to  have  waited  for  mine,  but  that  Trumbull, 
having  the  control  of  a  few  Abolitionized  Democrats, 
prevented  them  from  voting  for  Lincoln,  thus  keeping 
him  within  a  few  votes  of  an  election  until  he  succeeded 
in  forcing  the  party  to  drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull. 
Well,  Trumbull  having  cheated  Lincoln,  his  friends 
m^ade  a  fuss,  and  in  order  to  keep  them  and  Lincoln 
quiet,  the  party  were  obliged  to  come  forward,  in  ad- 
vance, at  the  last  State  election,  and  make  a  pledge  that 
they  would  go  for  Lincoln  and  nobody  else.  Lincoln 
could  not  be  silenced  in  any  other  way. 

Now,  there  are  a  great  many  Black  Republicans  of 
you  who  do  not  know  this  thing  was  done.     ["White, 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  207 

white,"  afid  great  clamor.]  I  wish  to  remind  you  that 
while  Mr.  Lincoln  was  speaking  there  was  not  a  Demo- 
crat vulgar  and  blackguard  enough  to  interrupt  him. 
But  I  know  that  the  shoe  is  pinching  you.  I  am  clinch- 
ing Lincoln  now,  and  you  are  scared  to  death  for  the 
result.  I  have  seen  this  thing  before.  I  have  seen  men 
make  appointments  for  joint  discussions,  and,  the  mo- 
ment their  man  has  been  heard,  try  to  interrupt  and 
prevent  a  fair  hearing  of  the  other  side.  I  have  seen 
your  mobs  before,  and  defy  their  wrath.  {Tremendous 
applause.]  My  friends,  do  not  cheer,  for  I  need  my 
whole  time.  The  object  of  the  opposition  is  to  occupy 
my  attention  in  order  to  prevent  me  from  giving  the 
whole  evidence  and  nailing  this  double-dealing  on  the 
Black  Republican  party.  As  I  have  before  said,  Love- 
joy  demanded  a  declaration  of  principles  on  the  part  of 
the  Black  Republicans  of  the  legislature  before  going 
into  an  election  for  United  States  senator.  He  offered 
the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand : 

Whereas,  Human  slavery  is  a  violation  of  the  principles 
of  natural  and  revealed  rights ;  and  whereas,  the  fathers 
of  the  Revolution,  fully  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  these 
principles,  declared  freedom  to  be  the  inalienable  birth- 
right of  all  men  ;  and  whereas,  the  preamble  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  avers  that  that  instrument 
v.'as  ordained  to  establish  justice  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity;  and  whereas,  in 
furtherance  of  the  above  principles,  slavery  was  forever 
prohibited  in  the  old  Northwest  Territory,  and  more 
recently  in  all  that  territory  lying  west  and  north  of  the 
State  of  Missouri  by  the  act  of  the  Federal  Government ; 
and  whereas,  the  repeal  of  the  prohibition  last  referred  to 
was  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  Illinois,  a 
violation  of  an  implied  compact,  long  deemed  sacred  by 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  a  wide  departure 
from^  the  uniform  action  of  the  General  Government  in 
relation   to  the   extension   of  slavery ;    therefore. 

Resolved,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate 
concurring  therein,  That  our  senators  in  Congress  be  in- 
structed, and  our  representatives  requested  to  introduce, 
if  not  otherwise  introduced,  and  to  vote  for  a  bill  to 
restore  such  prohibition  to  the  aforesaid  Territories,  and 
also  to  extend  a  similar  prohibition  to  all  territory  which 
now  belongs  to  the  United  States,  or  which  may  hereafter 
come    under    their    jurisdiction. 

Resolved,  That  our  senators  in  Congress  be  instructed, 
and    our    representatives    requested,    to    vote    against    the 


2o8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       tAug.  27 


admission  of  any  State  into  the  Union,  the  constitution 
of  which  does  not  prohibit  slavery,  whether  the  territory 
out  of  which  such  State  may  have  been  formed  shall  have 
been  acquired  by  conquest,  treaty,  purchase,  or  from  orig- 
inal   territory    of   the    United    States. 

Resolved,  That  our  senators  in  Congress  be  instructed, 
and  our  representatives  requested,  to  introduce  and  vote 
for  a  bill  to  repeal  an  act  entitled  "An  act  respecting 
fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the 
services  of  their  masters'  ;  and,  failing  in  that,  for  such 
a  modification  of  it  as  shall  secure  the  right  of  habeas 
corpus  and  trial  by  jury  before  the  regularly  constituted 
authorities  of  the  State,  to  all  persons  claimed  as  owing 
service  or  labor. 


Those  resolutions  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Lovejoy 
immediately  preceding  the  election  of  senator.  They 
declared  first,  that  the  Wilmot  proviso  must  be  applied 
to  all  territory  north  of  36°  30';  secondly,  that  it  must 
be  applied  to  all  territory  south  of  36°  30' ;  thirdly,  that 
it  must  be  applied  to  all  the  territory  now  owned  by  the 
United  States ;  and  finally,  that  it  must  be  applied  to  all 
territory  hereafter  to  be  acquired  by  the  United  States. 
The  next  resolution  declares  that  no  more  slave  States 
shall  be  admitted  into  this  Union  under  any  circum- 
stances whatever,  no  matter  whether  they  are  formed 
out  of  territory  now  owned  by  us  or  that  we  may  here- 
after acquire,  by  treaty,  by  Congress,  or  in  any  manner 
whatever.  The  next  resolution  demands  the  uncondi- 
tional repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law,  although  its  un- 
conditional repeal  would  leave  no  provision  for  carry- 
ing out  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  guarantees  the  surrender  of  fugitives.  If 
they  could  not  get  an  unconditional  repeal,  they  de- 
manded that  that  law  should  be  so  modified  as  to  make 
it  as  nearly  useless  as  possible.  Now,  I  want  to  show 
you  who  voted  for  these  resolutions.  When  the  vote 
was  taken  on  the  first  resolution,  it  was  decided  in  the 
affirmative — yeas  41,  nays  32.  You  will  find  that  this  is 
a  strict  party  vote,  between  the  Democrats  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Black  Republicans  on  the  other.  [Cries 
of  ''White,  white,"  and  clamor.]  I  know  your  name, 
and  always  call  things  by  their  right  name.  The  point 
I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  is  this :  that  these  reso- 
lutions were  adopted  on  the  7th  day  of  February,  and 
that  on  the  8th  they  went  into  an  election  for  a  United 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  209 

States  senator,  and  that  day  every  man  who  voted  for 
these  resolutions,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted  for 
Lincoln  for  the  United  States  Senate.  ["Give  us  their 
jianies."]  I  will  read  the  names  over  to  you  if  you  want 
them,  but  I  believe  your  object  is  to  occupy  my  time. 

On  the  next  resolution  the  vote  stood,  yeas  33,  nays 
40 ;  and  on  the  third  resolution,  yeas  35,  nays  47.  I 
wish  to  impress  upon  you  that  every  man  who  voted 
for  those  resolutions,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted 
on  the  next  day  for  Lincoln  for  United  States  senator. 
Bear  in  mind  that  the  members  who  thus  voted  for 
Lincoln  were  elected  to  the  legislature  pledged  to  vote 
for  no  man  for  office  under  the  State  or  Federal  Gov- 
ernment who  was  not  committed  to  this  Black  Repub- 
lican platform.  They  were  all  so  pledged.  Mr.  Turner, 
who  stands  by  me,  and  who  then  represented  you,  and 
who  says  that  he  wrote  those  resolutions,  voted  for 
Lincoln,  when  he  was  pledged  not  to  do  so  unless 
Lincoln  v/as  in  favor  of  those  resolutions.  I  now  ask 
Mr.  Turner  [turning  to  Mr.  Turner],  did  you  violate 
your  pledge  in  voting  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  did  he  com- 
mit himself  to  your  platform  before  you  cast  your  vote 
for  him? 

I  could  go  through  the  whole  list  of  names  here  and 
shov/  you  that  all  the  Black  Republicans  in  the  legisla- 
ture, who  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  had  voted  on  the  day 
previous  for  these  resolutions.  For  instance,  here  are 
the  names  of  Sargent  and  Little,  of  Jo  Daviess  and  Car- 
roll ;  Thomas  J.  Turner,  of  Stephenson ;  Lawrence,  of 
Boone  and  McHenry ;  Swan,  of  Lake ;  Pinckney,  of 
Ogle  County ;  and  Lyman,  of  Winnebago.  Thus  you 
see  every  member  from  your  congressional  district 
voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  they  were  pledged  not  to 
vote  for  him  unless  he  was  committed  to  the  doctrine  of 
no  more  slave  States,  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and  the  repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law. 
Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  to-day  that  he  is  not  pledged  to 
any  such  doctrine.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  was  then  com- 
mitted to  those  propositions,  or  Mr.  Turner  violated  his 
pledges  to  you  when  he  voted  for  him.  Either  Lincoln 
was-  pledged  to  each  one  of  those  propositions,  or  else 
every  Black  Republican  representative  from  this  con- 
gressional district  violated  his  pledge  of  honor  to  his 
constituents  by  voting  for  him.  I  ask  you  which  horn 
of  the  dilemma  will  you  take?     Will  you  hold  Lincoln 


2 TO  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

up  to  the  platform  of  his  party  or  will  you  accuse  every 
representative  you  had  in  the  legislature  of  violating  his 
pledge  of  honor  to  his  constituents?  There  is  no  escape 
for  you.  Either  JMr.  Lincoln  was  committed  to  those 
proDOsitions.  or  your  members  violated  their  faith. 
Take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma  you  choose.  There  is 
no  dodging  the  question;  I  want  Lincoln's  answer.  He 
says  he  was  not  pledged  to  repeal  the  fugitive-slave  law, 
that  he  does  not  quite  like  to  do  it ;  he  will  not  intro- 
duce a  law  to  repeal  it,  but  thinks  there  ought  to  be  some 
law ;  he  does  not  tell  what  it  ought  to  be ;  upon  the 
whole,  he  is  altogether  undecided,  and  don't  know  what 
to  think  or  do.  That  is  the  substance  of  his  answer 
upon  the  repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law.  I  put  the 
question  to  him  distinctly,  whether  he  indorsed  that  part 
of  the  Black  Republican  platform  which  calls  for  the 
entire  abrogation  and  repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law. 
He  answers,  no  ! — that  he  does  not  indorse  that ;  but  he 
does  not  tell  what  he  is  for,  or  what  he  will  vote  for. 
His  answer  is,  in  fact,  no  answer  at  all.  Why  cannot 
he  speak  out  and  say  what  he  is  for  and  what  he  will 
do? 

In  regard  to  there  being  no  more  slave  States,  he  is 
not  pledged  to  that.  He  would  not  like,  he  says,  to  be 
put  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  one  way 
or  another  upon  that  question.  I  pray  you,  do  not  put 
him  in  a  position  that  would  embarrass  him  so  much. 
Gentlemen,  if  he  goes  to  the  Senate  he  may  be  put_  in 
that  position,  and  which  way  will  he  vote?  [zi  voice: 
"How  will  you  vote?"]  I  will  vote  for  the  admission 
cf  just  such  a  State  as  by  the  form  of  their  constitu- 
tion the  people  show  they  want.  If  they  want  slavery, 
they  shall  have  it;  if  they  prohibit  slavery,  it  shall  be 
prohibited.  They  can  form  their  institutions  to  please 
themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution ;  and  I  for 
one  stand  ready  to  receive  them  into  the  Union.  Why 
cannot  your  Black  Republican  candidates  talk  out  as 
plain  as  that  when  they  are  questioned? 

I  do  not  want  to  cheat  any  man  out  of  his  vote.  No 
man  is  deceived  in  regard  to  my  principles  if  I  have  the 
power  to  express  myself  in  terms  explicit  enough  to 
convey  my  ideas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  when  he  was  nominated 
for  the  United  States  Senate  which  covers  all  these 
Abolition  platforms.     He  there  lays  down  a  proposition 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  211 

so   broad   in    its    Abolitionism    as    to    cover    the    whole 
ground. 

In  my  o-oinion  it  [fJie  slavery  agifafionl  will  not  cease 
until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  "A 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this 
government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do 
expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one 
thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery 
will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where 
the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — 
old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  lays  down  the  doc- 
trine that  this  Union  cannot  endure  divided  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  with  free  and  slave  States.  He  says 
they  must  all  become  one  thing  or  all  the  other ;  that 
they  must  all  be  free  or  all  slave,  or  else  the  Union 
cannot  continue  to  exist.  It  being  his  opinion  that  to 
admit  any  more  slave  States,  to  continue  to  divide  the 
Union  into  free  and  slave  States,  will  dissolve  it,  I  want 
to  know  of  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  ad- 
mission of  another  slave  State. 

He  tells  you  the  Union  cannot  exist  unless  the  States 
are  all  free  or  all  slave;  he  tells  you  that  he  is  opposed  to 
making  them  all  slave,  and  hence  he  is  for  making  them 
all  free,  in  order  that  the  Union  may  exist ;  and  yet  he 
will  not  say  that  he  will  not  vote  against  another  slave 
State,  knowing  that  the  Union  must  be  dissolved  if  he 
votes  for  it.  I  ask  you  if  that  is  fair  dealing?  The 
true  intent  and  inevitable  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
his  first  Springfield  speech  is,  that  he  is  opposed  to  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  under  any  circum- 
stances. If  he  is  so  opposed,  why  not  say  so?  If  he 
believes  this  Union  cannot  endure  divided  into  free  and 
slave  States,  that  they  must  all  become  free  in  order  to 
save  the  Union,  he  is  bound  as  an  honest  man,  to  vote 
against  any  more  slave  States.  If  he  believes  it  he  is 
bound  to  do  it.  Show  me  that  it  is  my  duty  in  order  to 
save  the  Union  to  do  a  particular  act,  and  I  will  do  it 
if  the  Constitution  does  not  prohibit  it.  I  am  not  for 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  under  any  circumstances. 
I  will  pursue  no  course  of  conduct  that  will  give  just 


2  12  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Aug.  27 

cause  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  The  hope  of  the 
friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world  rests  upon  the 
perpetuity  of  this  Union.  The  downtrodden  and  op- 
pressed people  who  are  suffering  under  European  des- 
potism all  look  with  hope  and  anxiety  to  the  American 
Union  as  the  only  resting-place  and  permanent  home 
of  freedom  and  self-government. 

Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  he  believes  that  this  Union 
cannot  continue  to  endure  with  slave  States  in  it,  and 
yet  he  will  not  tell  you  distinctly  whether  he  will  vote 
for  or  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States, 
but  says  he  would  not  like  to  be  put  to  the  test.  I 
do  not  think  he  will  be  put  to  the  test.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  people  of  Illinois  desire  a  man  to  represent 
them  who  would  not  like  to  be  put  to  the  test  on  the 
performance  of  a  high  constitutional  duty.  I  will  re- 
tire in  shame  from  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
when  I  am  not  willing  to  be  put  to  the  test  in  the 
performance  of  my  duty.  I  have  been  put  to  severe 
tests.  I  have  stood  by  my  principles  in  fair  weather 
and  in  foul,  in  the  sunshine  and  in  the  rain.  I  have 
defended  the  great  principles  of  self-government  here 
among  you  when  Northern  sentiment  ran  in  a  torrent 
against  me,  and  I  have  defended  that  same  great 
principle  when  Southern  sentiment  came  down  like  an 
avalanche  upon  me.  I  was  not  afraid  of  any  test  they 
put  to  me.  I  knew  I  was  right — I  knew  my  principles 
were  sound — I  knew  that  the  people  would  see  in  the 
end  that  I  had  done  right,  and  I  knew  that  the  God 
of  Heaven  would  smile  upon  me  if  I  was  faithful  in  the 
performance  of  my  duty. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  a  charge  of  corruption  against 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  two 
Presidents  of  the  United  States,  and  attempts  to  bol- 
ster it  up  by  saying  that  I  did  the  same  against  the 
Washington  Union.  Suppose  I  did  make  that  charge 
of  corruption  against  the  Washington  Union,  when 
it  was  true,  does  that  justify  him  in  making  a  false 
charge  agamst  me  and  others?  That  is  the  question 
I  would  put.  He  says  that  at  the  time  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  introduced,  and  before  it  was  passed,  there 
was  a  conspiracy  between  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  my- 
self by  that  bill,  and  the  decision  of  the  court,  to 
break  down  the  barrier  and  establish  slavery  all  over 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  213 

the  Union.  Does  he  not  know  that  that  charge  is 
historically  false  as  against  President  Buchanan?  He 
knows  that  Mr.  Buchanan  was  at  that  time  in  England, 
representing  this  country  with  distinguished  ability  at 
the  Court  of  St.  James,  that  he  was  there  for  a  long 
time  before,  and  did  not  return  for  a  year  or  more 
after.  He  knows  that  to  be  true,  and  that  fact  proves 
his  charge  to  be  false  as  against  Mr.  Buchanan.  Then 
again,  I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passed,  the  Dred  Scott 
case  was  not  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  all;  it  was 
not  upon  the  docket  of  the  Supreme  Court;  it  had  not 
been  brought  there,  and  the  judges  in  all  probability 
knew  nothing  of  it.  Thus  the  history  of  the  country 
proves  the  charge  to  be  false  as  against  them.  As  to 
President  Pierce,  his  high  character  as  a  man  of  integ- 
rity and  honor  is  enough  to  vindicate  him  from  such 
a  charge;  and  as  to  myself,  I  pronounce  the  charge  an 
infamous  lie,  whenever  and  wherever  made,  and  by 
whomsoever  made.  I  am  willing  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
should  go  and  rake  up  every  public  act  of  mine,  every 
measure  I  have  introduced,  report  I  have  made,  speech 
delivered,  and  criticise  them;  but  when  he  charges  upon 
me  a  corrupt  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  perverting 
the  institutions  of  the  country,  I  brand  it  as  it  deserves. 
I  say  the  history  of  the  country  proves  it  to  be  false, 
and  that  it  could  not  have  been  possible  at  the  time. 
But  now  he  tries  to  protect  himself  in  this  charge, 
because  I  made  a  charge  against  the  Washington 
Union.  My  speech  in  the  Senate  against  the  Washing- 
ton Union  was  made  because  it  advocated  a  revolu- 
tionary doctrine,  by  declaring  that  the  free  States  had 
not  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  their  own 
limits.  Because  I  made  that  charge  against  the  Wash- 
ington Union,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  it  was  a  charge  against 
Mr.  Buchanan.  Suppose  it  was  ;  is  Lincoln  the 
peculiar  defender  of  Mr.  Buchanan?  Is  he  so  in- 
terested in  the  Federal  administration,  and  so  bound 
to  it,  that  he  must  jump  to  the  rescue  and  defend  it 
from  every  attack  that  I  may  make  against  it?  I  un- 
derstand the  whole  thing.  The  Washington  Union, 
under  that  most  corrupt  of  all  men,  Cornelius  Wendell, 
is  advocating  Mr.  Lincoln's  claim  to  the  Senate.  Wen- 
dell was  the  printer  of  the  last  Black  Republican 
House  of  Representatives;  he  was  a  candidate  before 


214  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

the  present  Democratic  House,  but  was  ignominiously 
kicked  out,  and  then  he  took  the  money  which  he  had 
made  out  of  the  pubHc  printing  by  means  of  the  Black 
RepubHcans,  bought  the  Washington  Union,  and  is 
now  pubhshing  it  in  the  name  of  the  Democratic  party, 
and  advocating  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  to  the  Senate. 
Mr.  Lincoln  therefore  considers  an  attack  upon  Wen- 
dell and  his  corrupt  gang  as  a  personal  attack  upon 
him.  This  only  proves  what  I  have  charged,  that 
there  is  an  alliance  between  Lincoln  and  his  sup- 
porters, and  the  Federal  office-holders  of  this  State, 
and  presidential  aspirants  out  of  it,  to  break  me  down 
at  home. 

Mr.  Lincoln  feels  bound  to  come  in  to  the  rescue  of 
the  Washington  Union.  In  that  speech  which  I  de- 
livered in  answer  to  the  Washington  Union,  I  made  it 
distinctly  against  the  Union  alone.  I  did  not  choose 
to  go  beyond  that.  If  I  have  occasion  to  attack  the 
President's  conduct,  I  will  do  it  in  language  that  will 
not  be  misunderstood.  When  I  differed  with  the 
President  I  spoke  out  so  that  you  all  heard  me.  That 
question  passed  away;  it  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  my 
principle  by  allowing  the  people  to  do  as  they  please, 
and  there  is  an  end  of  the  controversy.  Whenever  the 
great  principle  of  self-government — the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  their  own  constitution,  and  come  into 
the  Union  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  they  see 
proper — shall  again  arise,  you  will  find  me  standing 
firm  in  defense  of  that  principle,  and  fighting  whoever 
fights  it.  If  Mr.  Buchanan  stands,  as  I  doubt  not  he 
will,  by  the  recommendation  contained  in  his  message, 
that  hereafter  all  State  constitutions  ought  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  before  the  admission  of  the  State 
into  the  Union,  he  will  find  me  standing  by  him  firmly, 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  carrying  it  out.  I  know  Mr. 
Lincoln's  object;  he  wants  to  divide  the  Democratic 
party,  in  order  that  he  may  defeat  me  and  go  to  the 
Senate. 

[Mr.  Douglas's  time  here  expired,  and  he  stopped  on 
the  77ioment/\ 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder. 

My  Friends:  It  will  readily  occur  to  you  that 
I  cannot  in  half  an  hour  notice  all  the  things  that 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  215 

so  able  a  man  as  Judge  Douglas  can  say  in  an 
hour  and  a  half;  and  I  hope,  therefore,  if  there 
be  anything  that  he  has  said  upon  which  you 
v>^ould  like  to  hear  something  from  me,  but  which 
I  omit  to  comment  upon,  you  will  bear  in  mind 
that  it  would  be  expecting  an  impossibility  for  me 
to  go  over  his  whole  ground.  I  can  but  take  up 
some  of  the  points  that  he  has  dwelt  upon,  and 
employ  my  half  hour  specially  on  them. 

The  first  thing  I  have  to  say  to  you  is  a  word 
in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas's  declaration  about 
the  "vulgarity  and  blackguardism"  in  the  audi- 
ence— that  no  such  thing,  as  he  says,  was  shown 
by  any  Democrat  while  I  was  speaking.  Now  I 
only  wish,  by  way  of  reply  on  this  subject,  to  say 
that  while  I  was  speaking  I  used  no  ''vulgarity 
or  blackguardism"  toward  any  Democrat. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  come  to  all  this  long  por- 
tion of  the  judge's  speech — perhaps  half  of  it — 
which  he  has  devoted  to  the  various  resolutions 
and  platforms  that  have  been  adopted  in  the  dif- 
ferent counties,  in  the  different  congressional  dis- 
tricts, and  in  the  Illinois  legislature — which  he 
supposes  are  at  variance  with  the  positions  I  have 
assumed  before  you  to-day.  It  is  true  that  many 
of  these  resolutions  are  at  variance  with  the  posi- 
tions I  have  here  assumed.  All  I  have  to  ask 
is  that  we  talk  reasonably  and  rationally  about  it. 
I  happen  to  know,  the  judge's  opinion  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding,  that  I  have  never  tried  to 
conceal  my  opinions,  nor  tried  to  deceive  any  one 
in  reference  to  them.  He  may  go  and  examine 
all  the  members  who  voted  for  me  for  United 
States  senator  in  1855,  after  the  election  of  1854. 
They  were  pledged  to  certain  things  here  at  home, 
and  were  determined  to  have  pledges  from  me, 


2i6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       tAug.  27 

and  if  he  will  find  any  of  these  persons  who  will 
tell  him  anything  inconsistent  with  what  I  say 
now,  I  will  retire  from  the  race,  and  give  him  no 
more  trouble. 

The  plain  truth  is  this.  At  the  introduction  of 
the  Nebraska  policy,  we  believed  there  was  a  new 
era  being  introduced  in  the  history  of  the  repub- 
lic, which  tended  to  the  spread  and  perpetuation 
of  slavery.  But  in  our  opposition  to  that  measure 
we  did  not  agree  with  one  another  in  everything. 
The  people  in  the  north  end  of  the  State  were 
for  stronger  measures  of  opposition  than  we  of 
the  central  and  southern  portions  of  the  State, 
but  we  were  all  opposed  to  the  Nebraska  doctrine. 
We  had  that  one  feelmg  and  that  one  sentiment 
in  common.  You  at  the  north  end  met  in  your 
conventions  and  passed  your  resolutions.  We  in 
the  middle  of  the  State  and  further  south  did  not 
hold  such  conventions  and  pass  the  same  resolu- 
tions, although  we  had  in  general  a  common  view 
and  a  common  sentiment.  So  that  these  meetings 
which  the  judge  has  alluded  to,  and  the  resolu- 
tions he  has  read  from,  were  local,  and  did  not 
spread  over  the  whole  State.  We  at  last  met  to- 
gether in  1856,  from  all  parts  of  the  State,  and 
we  agreed  upon  a  common  platform.  You  who 
held  more  extreme  notions,  either  yielded  those 
notions,  or  if  not  wholly  yielding  them,  agreed 
to  yield  them  practically,  for  the  sake  of  embody- 
ing the  opposition  to  the  measures  which  the  op- 
posite party  were  pushing  forward  at  that  time. 
We  met  you  then,  and  if  there  was  anything 
yielded,  it  was  for  practical  purposes.  We  agreed 
then  upon  a  platform  for  the  party  throughout 
the  entire  State  of  Illinois,  and  now  we  are  all 
bound,  as  a  party,  to  that  platform.    And  I  say 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  217 

here  to  you,  if  any  one  expects  of  me,  in  the  case 
of  my  election,  that  I  will  do  anything  not  signi- 
fied by  our  Republican  platform  and  my  answers 
here  to-day,  I  tell  you  very  frankly  that  person 
will  be  deceived.  I  do  not  ask  for  the  vote  of  any 
one  who  supposes  that  I  have  secret  purposes  or 
pledges  that  I  dare  not  speak  out.  Cannot  the 
judge  be  satisfied?  If  he  fears,  in  the  unfortu- 
nate case  of  my  election,  that  my  going  to  Wash- 
ington will  enable  me  to  advocate  sentiments  con- 
trary to  those  which  I  expressed  when  you  voted 
for  and  elected  me,  I  assure  him  that  his  fears  are 
wholly  needless  and  groundless.  Is  the  judge 
really  afraid  of  any  such  thing?  I'll  tell  you 
what  he  is  afraid  of.  He  is  afraid  we'll  all  pull 
together.  This  is  what  alarms  him  more  than 
anything  else.  For  my  part,  I  do  hope  that  all  of 
us,  entertaining  a  common  sentiment  in  opposi- 
tion to  what  appears  to  us  a  design  to  national- 
ize and  perpetuate  slavery,  will  waive  minor  dif- 
ferences on  questions  which  either  belong  to  the 
dead  past  or  the  distant  future,  and  all  pull  to- 
gether in  this  struggle.  What  are  your  senti- 
ments? If  it  be  true  that  on  the  ground  which 
I  occupy — ground  which  I  occupy  as  frankly  and 
boldly  as  Judge  Douglas  does  his — miy  views, 
though  partly  coinciding  with  yours,  are  not  as 
perfectly  in  accordance  with  your  feelings  as  his 
are,  I  do  say  to  you  in  all  candor,  go  for  him  and 
not  for  me.  I  hope  to  deal  in  all  things  fairly 
with  Judge  Douglas,  and  with  the  people  of  the 
State,  in  this  contest.  And  if  I  should  never  be 
elected  to  any  office,  I  trust  I  may  go  down  with 
no  stain  of  falsehood  upon  my  reputation,  not- 
withstanding the  hard  opinions  Judge  Douglas 
chooses  to  entertain  of  me. 


2i8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

The  judge  has  again  addressed  himself  to  the 
AboHtion  tendencies  of  a  speech  of  mine,  made 
at  Springfield  in  June  last.  I  have  so  often  tried 
to  answer  what  he  is  always  saying  on  that  mel- 
ancholy theme,  that  I  almost  turn  with  disgust 
from  the  discussion — from  the  repetition  of  an 
answer  to  it.  I  trust  that  nearly  all  of  this  intelli- 
gent audience  have  read  that  speech.  If  you 
have,  I  may  venture  to  leave  it  to  you  to  inspect 
it  closely,  and  see  whether  it  contains  any  of  those 
"bugaboos"  which  frighten  Judge  Douglas. 

The  judge  complains  that  I  did  not  fully  an- 
swer his  questions.  If  I  have  the  sense  to  com- 
prehend and  answer  those  questions,  I  have  done 
so  fairly.  If  it  can  be  pointed  out  to  me  how  I 
can  more  fully  and  fairly  answer  him,  I  v/ill  do 
it — but  I  aver  I  have  not  the  sense  to  see  how  it 
is  to  be  done.  He  says  I  do  not  declare  I  would 
in  any  event  vote  for  the  admission  of  a  slave 
State  into  the  Union.  If  I  have  been  fairly  re- 
ported, he  will  see  that  I  did  give  an  explicit  an- 
swer to  his  interrogatories.  I  did  not  merely  say 
that  I  would  dislike  to  be  put  to  the  test,  but  I 
said  clearly,  if  I  were  put  to  the  test,  and  a 
Territory  from  which  slavery  had  been  excluded 
should  present  herself  with  a  State  constitution 
sanctioning  slavery, — a  most  extraordinary  thing 
and  wholly  unlikely  to  happen, — I  did  not  see  how 
I  could  avoid  voting  for  her  admission.  But  he  re- 
fuses to  understand  that  I  said  so,  and  he  wants 
this  audience  to  understand  that  I  did  not  say  so. 
Yet  it  will  be  so  reported  in  the  printed  speech 
that  he  cannot  help  seeing  it. 

He  says  if  I  should  vote  for  the  admission  of 
a  slave  State  I  would  be  voting  for  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  because  I  hold  that  the  Union  can- 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  215 

not  permanently  exist  half  slave  and  half  free.  I 
repeat  that  I  do  not  believe  this  government  can 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free,  yet 
I  do  not  admit,  nor  does  it  at  all  follow,  that  the 
admission  of  a  single  slave  State  will  permanently 
fix  the  character  and  establish  this  as  a  universal 
slave  nation.  The  judge  is  very  happy  indeed  at 
working  up  these  quibbles.  Before  leaving  the 
subject  of  answering  questions,  1  aver  as  my  con- 
fident belief,  when  you  come  to  see  our  speeches 
in  print,  that  you  will  find  every  question  which 
he  has  asked  me  more  fairly  and  boldly  and  fully 
answered  than  he  has  answered  those  which  I  put 
to  him.  Is  not  that  so?  The  two  speeches  may 
be  placed  side  by  side ;  and  I  will  venture  to  leave 
it  to  impartial  judges  whether  his  questions  have 
not  been  more  directly  and  circumstantially  an- 
swered than  mine. 

Judge  Douglas  says  he  made  a  charge  upon  the 
editor  of  the  Washington  Union,  alone,  of  enter- 
taining a  purpose  to  rob  the  States  of  their  power 
to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits.  I  undertake 
to  say,  and  I  make  the  direct  issue,  that  he  did 
not  m.ake  his  charge  against  the  editor  of  the 
Union  alone.  I  will  undertake  to  prove  by  the 
record  here  that  he  made  that  charge  against 
more  and  higher  dignitaries  than  the  editor  of 
the  Washington  Union.  I  am  quite  aware  that  he 
was  shirking  and  dodging  around  the  form  in 
which  he  put  it,  but  I  can  make  it  manifest  that  he 
leveled  his  "fatal  blow"  against  more  persons 
than  this  Washington  editor.  Will  he  dodge  it 
now  by  alleging  that  I  am  trying  to  defend  Mr. 
Buchanan  against  the  charge  ?  Not  at  all.  Am  I 
not  making  the  same  charge  myself?  I  am  try- 
ing to  show  that  you,  Judge  Douglas,  are  a  wit- 


220  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

ness  on  my  side.  I  am  not  defending  Buchanan, 
and  I  will  tell  Judge  Douglas  that  in  my  opinion 
when  he  made  that  charge  he  had  an  eye  farther 
north  than  he  was  to-day.*  He  was  then  fight- 
ing against  people  who  called  him  a  Black  Repub- 
lican and  an  Abolitionist.  It  is  mixed  all  through 
his  speech,  and  it  is  tolerably  manifest  that  his  eye 
was  a  great  deal  farther  north  than  it  is  to-day. 
The  judge  says  that  though  he  made  this  charge, 
Toombs  got  up  and  declared  there  was  not  a  man 
in  the  United  States,  except  the  editor  of  the 
Union,  who  was  in  favor  of  the  doctrines  put 
forth  in  that  article.  And  thereupon  I  under- 
stand that  the  judge  withdrew  the  charge.  Al- 
though he  had  taken  extracts  from  the  news- 
paper, and  then  from  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
to  show  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  to  bring 
about  a  ''fatal  blow,"  by  which  the  States  were  to 
be  deprived  of  the  right  of  excluding  slavery, 
it  all  went  to  pot  as  soon  as  Toombs  got  up  and 
told  him  it  was  not  true.  It  reminds  mic  of  the 
story  that  John  Phoenix,  the  California  railroad 
surveyor,  tells.  He  says  they  started  out  from 
the  Plaza  to  the  mission  of  Dolores.  They  had 
two  ways  of  determining  distances.  One  was  by 
a  chain  and  pins  taken  over  the  ground ;  the  other 
was  by  a  "go-it-ometer," — an  invention  of  his 
own, — a  three-legged  instrument,  with  which  he 
computed  a  series  of  triangles  between  the  points. 
At  night  he  turned  to  the  chain-man  to  ascertain 
what  distance  they  had  come,  and  found  that  by 
some  mistake  he  had  merely  dragged  the  chain 

*  A  hint  at  the  charge,  made  at  the  time  of  Douglas's 
break  with  Buchanan  on  the  Lecompton  matter,  that  the 
Senator  was  preparing  to  enter  the  Republican  party 
when  circumstances  became  propitious. 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  221 

over  the  ground  without  keeping  any  record.  By 
the  "go-it-ometer"  he  found  he  had  made  ten 
miles.  Being  skeptical  about  this,  he  asked  a  dray- 
man who  was  passing  how  far  it  was  to  the 
Plaza.  The  drayman  replied  it  was  just  half  a 
mile,  and  the  surveyor  put  it  down  in  his  book — 
just  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  after  he  had  made  his 
calculations  and  computations,  he  took  Toombs's 
statement.  I  have  no  doubt  that  after  Judge 
Douglas  had  made  his  charge,  he  was  as  easily 
satisfied  about  its  truth  as  the  surveyor  was  of 
the  drayman's  statement  of  the  distance  to  the 
Plaza.  Yet  it  is  a  fact  that  the  man  who  put  forth 
all  that  matter  which  Douglas  deemed  a  "fatal 
blow"  at  State  sovereignty,  was  elected  by  the 
Democrats  as  public  printer. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  may  take  Judge  Doug- 
las's speech  of  March  22,  1858,  beginning  about 
the  middle  of  page  21,  and  reading  to  the  bottom 
of  page  24,  and  you  will  find  the  evidence  on 
which  I  say  that  he  did  not  make  his  charge 
against  the  editor  of  the  Union  alone.  I  cannot 
stop  to  read  it,  but  I  will  give  it  to  the  reporters. 
Judge  Douglas  said : 

Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  prop- 
ositions advanced  boldly  by  the  Washington  Union 
editorially,  and  apparently  authoritatively,  and  every 
man  who  questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an 
Abolitionist,  a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The  proposi- 
tions are:  first,  that  the  primary  object  of  all  govern- 
ment at  its  original  institution  is  the  protection  of 
persons  and  property;  second,  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  citizens  in  the  several  States;  and 
that,  therefore,  thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic 
or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of  one  State 
from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and 


222  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

especially  declaring  it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of 
the  original  intention  of  the  government  and  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States;  and  fourth,  that  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  slaves  of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gross 
outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 

Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the 
Union  on  the  17th  of  November,  and  on  the  i8th  ap- 
peared the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the  Union 
to  the  Lecompton  constitution.     It  was  in  these  words: 

"Kansas  and  her  Constitution. — The  vexed  ques- 
tion is  settled.  The  problem  is  solved.  The  dead 
point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to 
Kansas  affairs  is  over  and  gone." 

And  a  column  nearly,  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when 
you  come  to  look  into  the  Lecompton  constitution,  you 
find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which  was 
put  forth  editorially  in  the  Union.     What  is  it? 

"Article  7,  Section  i.  The  right  of  property  is  be- 
fore and  higher  than  any  constitutional  sanction;  and 
the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its 
increase  is  the  same  and  as  invariable  as  the  right  of 
the  owner  of  any  property  whatever." 

Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  constitu- 
tion may  be  amended  after  1864  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

"But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  afifect  the  right 
of  property  in  the  ownership  of  slaves." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton 
constitution  that  they  are  identical  in  spirit  with  this 
authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  Union  of  the 
day  previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  constitution. 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of 
November,  followed  by  the  glorification  of  the  Le- 
compton constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and 
this  clause  in  the  constitution  asserting  the  doctrine 
that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its 
limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck 
at  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

Here  he  says,  "Mr.  President,  you  here  find 
several  distinct  propositions  advanced  boldly,  and 
apparently  authoritatively."  By  whose  authority, 
Judge  Douglas  ?  Again,  he  says  in  another  place, 
"It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecomp- 


i8s8]  AT  FREEPORT  223 

ton  constitution  that  they  are  identical  in  spirit 
with  this  authoritative  article."  By  whose  au- 
thority? Who  do  you  mean  to  say  authorized 
the  publication  of  these  articles  ?  He  knows  that 
the  Washington  Union  is  considered  the  organ 
of  the  administration.  I  demand  of  Judge  Doug- 
las by  whose  authority  he  meant  to  say  those 
articles  were  published,  if  not  by  the  authority  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  cab- 
inet? I  defy  him  to  show  whom  he  referred  to, 
if  not  to  these  high  functionaries  in  the  Federal 
Government.  More  than  this,  he  says  the  articles 
in  that  paper  and  the  provisions  of  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  are  ''identical,"  and  being  identi- 
cal, he  argues  that  the  authors  are  cooperating 
and  conspiring  together.  He  does  not  use  the 
word  "conspiring,"  but  what  other  construction 
can  you  put  upon  it  ?    He  winds  up  with  this : 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of 
November,  followed  by  the  glorification  of  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  on  the  i8th  of  November,  and 
this  clause  in  the  constitution  asserting  the  doctrine 
that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its 
limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck 
at  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

I  ask  him  if  all  this  fuss  was  made  over  the 
editor  of  this  newspaper.  It  would  be  a  terribly 
''fatal  blow"  indeed  which  a  single  man  could 
strike,  when  no  President,  no  cabinet  officer,  no 
member  of  Congress,  was  giving  strength  and 
efficiency  to  the  movement.  Out  of  respect  to 
Judge  Douglas's  good  sense  I  must  believe  he 
didn't  manufacture  his  idea  of  the  "fatal"  char- 
acter of  that  blow  out  of  such  a  miserable  scape- 
grace as  he  represents  that  editor  to  be.  But  the 
judge's  eye  is  farther  south  now.    Then,  it  was 


224  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Aug.  27 

very  peculiarly  and  decidedly  north.  His  hope 
rested  on  the  idea  of  enlisting  the  great  ''Black 
Republican"  party,  and  making  it  the  tail  of  his 
new  kite.  He  knows  he  was  then  expecting  from 
day  to  day  to  turn  Republican  and  place  himself 
at  the  head  of  our  organization.  He  has  found 
that  these  despised  "Black  Republicans"  estimate 
him  by  a  standard  which  he  has  taught  them  only 
too  well.  Hence  he  is  crawling  back  into  his  old 
camp,  and  you  will  find  him  eventually  installed 
in  full  fellowship  among  those  whom  he  was  then 
battling,  and  with  whom  he  now  pretends  to  be  at 
such  fearful  variance.  [Loud  applause,  and  cries 
of  "Go  on,  go  on/']  I  cannot,  gentlemen,  my 
time  has  expired. 

"Fooling  the  People." 

Between  the  second  and  third  debates  with 
Douglas,  Lincoln  spoke  at  Clinton,  111.,  on  the 
afternoon  of  September  8.  In  this  he  uttered  his 
famous  expression  :  "You  can  fool  all  the  people 
some  of  the  time,  and  some  of  the  people  all  of 
the  time,  but  you  cannot  fool  all  the  people  all 
the  time,"  pointing  the  epigram  at  Senator  Doug- 
las. A  report  of  the  substance  of  his  opening 
remarks  appeared  in  the  Bloomington  Panta- 
graph  the  next  day.  From  this  it  appears  that, 
after  proposing  to  show  the  commanding  import- 
ance of  the  slavery  question,  he  returned  upon  the 
senator  himself  Douglas's  charge  that  he,  Lin- 
coln, was  a  disturber  of  national  peace.  "On  the 
fourth  of  January,  1854,"  said  Lincoln,  "Judge. 
Douglas  introduced  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
He  initiated  a  new  policy  which  he  claimed  was  to 
put  an  end  to  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  ques- 


1858]  AT  FREEPORT  225 

tion.  Whether  that  was  his  object  or  not  I  will 
not  stop  to  discuss,  but  at  all  events  some  kind  of 
a  policy  was  initiated ;  and  what  has  been  the  re- 
sult? Instead  of  the  quiet  times  and  good  feel- 
ing which  was  promised  us  by  the  self-styled 
author  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  we  have  had 
nothing  but  ill-feeling  and  agitation.  According 
to  Judge  Douglas,  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  would  tranquilize  the  whole  country — there 
would  be  no  slavery  agitation  in  or  out  of  Con- 
gress, and  the  vexed  question  would  be  left  en- 
tirely to  the  people  of  the  Territories.  Such  was 
the  opinion  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  such  were  the 
opinions  of  the  leading  men  of  the  Democratic 
party.  Even  as  late  as  the  spring  of  1856,  Mr. 
Buchanan,  nominee  for  President,  said  that  Kan- 
sas would  be  tranquil  in  less  than  six  weeks. 

"Did  the  angry  debates  in  Congress  last  winter 
over  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  with 
a  constitution  detested  by  ninety-nine  of  every 
hundred  of  her  citizens,  lead  you  to  suppose  that 
the  slavery  agitation  was  settled?" 

Mr.  Lincoln  then  took  up  Douglas's  charge 
that  the  Republicans  believe  in  social  equality  of 
whites  and  blacks.  Here  Lincoln  read  from  a 
speech  he  had  made  in  Peoria  in  1854  (see  page 
249,  volume  two,  present  edition).  \ I  he  editor 
of  the  Pantagraph  states  that  ''the  audience,  after 
hearing  the  extracts  read  and  comparing  their 
conservative  sentiments  zvith  these  nozv  advo- 
cated by  Mr.  Lincoln,  testified  their  approval  by 
loud  applause.  How  any  reasonable  man  can 
hear  one  of  Mr.  Lincoln s  speeches  zvithout  being 
converted  to  Republicanism  is  something  that  we 
can't  account  for/'] 


226  SPEECHES  [Sept.  13 

"Popular    Sovereignty"    the    Right    to    Flog 

Negroes. 

Fragment  of  Speech  at  Paris,  III.    Septem- 
ber 8,  1858. 

Let  us  inquire  what  Judge  Douglas  really  in- 
vented when  he  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill. 
He  called  it  popular  sovereignty.  What  does 
that  mean?  It  means  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  over  their  own  affairs — in  other  words, 
the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves. 
Did  Judge  Douglas  invent  this  ?  Not  quite.  The 
idea  of  popular  sovereignty  was  floating  about 
several  ages  before  the  author  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  born — indeed,  before  Columbus  set  foot 
on  this  continent.  In  the  year  1776  it  took  form 
in  the  noble  words  which  you  are  all  familiar 
with :  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  etc.  Was  not  this 
the  origin  of  popular  sovereignty,  as  applied  to 
the  American  people?  Here  we  are  told  that 
governments  are  instituted  among  men  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. If  that  is  not  popular  sovereignty,  then  I 
have  no  conception  of  the  meaning  of  words.  If 
Judge  Douglas  did  not  invent  this  kind  of  popu- 
lar sovereignty,  let  us  pursue  the  inquiry  and  find 
out  what  kind  he  did  invent.  Was  it  the  right  of 
emigrants  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  govern 
themselves,  and  a  lot  of  ''niggers,"  too,  if  they 
wanted  them?  Clearly,  this  was  no  invention  of 
his,  because  General  Cass  put  forth  the  same  doc- 
trine in  1848  in  his  so-called  Nicholson  letter,  six 
years  before  Douglas  thought  of  such  a  thing. 
Then  what  was  it  that  the  ''Little   Giant"  in- 


i858]  AT  EDWARDSVILLE  227 

vented?  It  never  occurred  to  General  Cass  to 
call  his  discovery  by  the  odd  name  of  popular 
sovereig^nty.  He  had  not  the  face  to  say  that  the 
right  of  the  people  to  govern  "niggers"  was  the 
right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves.  His 
notions  of  the  fitness  of  things  were  not  moulded 
to  the  brazenness  of  calling  the  right  to  put  a 
hundred  "niggers"  through  under  the  lash  in 
Nebraska  a  "sacred"  right  of  self-government. 
And  here  I  submit  to  you  was  Judge  Douglas's 
discovery,  and  the  whole  of  it :  He  discovered 
that  the  right  to  breed  and  flog  negroes  in  Ne- 
braska was  popular  sovereignty. 

The  Issue  Between  the  Parties, 

and 
Justice  the  Bulv/ark  of  American  Democracy. 

Fragments  of  Speech  at  Edwardsville,  III. 
September  13,  1858. 

I  have  been  requested  to  give  a  concise  state- 
ment of  the  difference,  as  I  understand  it,  be- 
tween the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties, 
on  the  leading  issue  of  the  campaign.  This 
question  has  been  put  to  me  by  a  gentleman 
whom.  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  even  know 
whether  he  is  a  friend  of  mine  or  a  supporter  of 
Judge  Douglas  in  this  contest,  nor  does  that 
make  any  difference.  His  question  is  a  proper 
one.  Lest  I  should  forget  it,  I  will  give  you  my 
answer  before  proceeding  with  the  line  of  argu- 
ment I  have  marked  out  for  this  discussion. 

The  difference  between  the  Republican  and  the 
Democratic  parties  on  the  leading  issues  of  the 
contest,  as  I  understand  it,  is  that  the  former  con- 


228  SPEECHES  [Sept.  13 

sider  slavery  a  moral,  social,  and  political  wrong, 
while  the  latter  do  not  consider  it  either  a  moral, 
a  social,  or  a  political  wrong;  and  the  action  of 
each,  as  respects  the  growth  of  the  country  and 
the  expansion  of  our  population,  is  squared  to 
meet  these  views.  I  will  not  affirm  that  the  Dem- 
ocratic party  consider  slavery  morally,  socially, 
and  politically  right,  though  their  tendency  to 
that  view  has,  in  my  opinion,  been  constant  and 
unmistakable  for  the  past  five  years.  I  prefer 
to  take,  as  the  accepted  maxim  of  the  party,  the 
idea  put  forth  by  Judge  Douglas,  that  he  "don't 
care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up." 
I  am  quite  willing  to  believe  that  many  Demo- 
crats would  prefer  that  slavery  should  be  always 
'Voted  down,"  and  I  know  that  some  prefer  that 
it  be  always  "voted  up" ;  but  I  have  a  right  to  in- 
sist that  their  action,  especially  if  it  be  their  con- 
stant action,  shall  determiine  their  ideas  and  pref- 
erences on  this  subject.  Every  measure  of  the 
Democratic  party  of  late  years,  bearing  directly 
or  indirectly  on  the  slavery  question,  has  corre- 
sponded Vv'ith  this  notion  of  utter  indifference 
whether  slavery  or  freedom  shall  outrun  in  the 
race  of  empire  across  to  the  Pacific — every  meas- 
ure, I  say,  up  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  where, 
it  seems  to  me,  the  idea  is  boldly  suggested  that 
slavery  is  better  than  freedom.  The  Republican 
party,  on  the  contrary,  hold  that  this  government 
was  instituted  to  secure  the  blessings  of  freedom, 
and  that  slavery  is  an  unqualified  evil  to  the 
negro,  to  the  white  man,  to  the  soil,  and  to  the 
State.  Regarding  it  as  an  evil,  they  will  not 
molest  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  they  will 
not  overlook  the  constitutional  guards  which  our 
fathers  placed  around  it;  they  will  do  nothing 


i8s8]  AT  EDIVARDSVILLE  229 

that  can  ^ive  proper  offence  to  those  who  hold 
slaves  by  legal  sanction ;  but  they  will  use  every 
constitutional  method  to  prevent  the  evil  from 
becoming  larger  and  involving  more  negroes, 
more  white  men,  more  soil,  and  more  States  in 
its  deplorable  consequences.  They  will,  if  pos- 
sible, place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest 
in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  course  of  ultimate  peace- 
able extinction  in  God's  own  good  time.  And  to 
this  end  they  will,  if  possible,  restore  the  govern- 
ment to  the  policy  of  the  fathers — the  policy  of 
preserving  the  new  Territories  from  the  baneful 
influence  of  human  bondage,  as  the  Northwestern 
Territories  were  sought  to  be  preserved  by  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  and  the  Compromise  Act  of 
1820.  They  will  oppose,  in  all  its  length  and 
breadth,  the  modern  Democratic  idea,  that  slav- 
ery is  as  good  as  freedom,  and  ought  to  have 
room  for  expansion  all  over  the  continent,  if 
people  can  be  found  to  carry  it.  All,  or  nearly 
all,  of  Judge  Douglas's  arguments  are  logical,  if 
you  admit  that  slavery  is  as  good  and  as  right  as 
freedom,  and  not  one  of  them  is  worth  a  rush  if 
you  deny  it.  This  is  the  difference,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  between  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
parties. 

■  •  •  •  * 

]\Iy  friends,  I  have  endeavored  to  show  you 
the  logical  consequences  of  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision, which  holds  that  the  people  of  a  Territory 
cannot  prevent  the  establishment  of  slavery  in 
their  midst.  I  have  stated,  which  cannot  be  gain- 
said, that  the  grounds  upon  which  this  decision 
is  made  are  equally  applicable  to  the  free  States 
as  to  the  free  Territories,  and  that  the  peculiar 
reasons  put  forth  by  Judge  Douglas  for  endors- 


230  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

ing  this  decision  commit  him,  in  advance,  to  the 
next  decision  and  to  all  other  decisions  coming 
from  the  same  source.  And  when,  by  all  these 
means,  you  have  succeeded  in  dehumanizing-  the 
negro ;  when  you  have  put  him  down  and  made 
it  impossible  for  him  to  be  but  as  the  beasts  of  the 
field ;  when  vou  have  extins^uished  his  soul  in  this 
world  and  placed  him  where  the  ray  of  hope  is 
blown  out  as  in  the  darkness  of  the  damned,  are 
you  quite  sure  that  the  demon  you  have  roused 
will  not  turn  and  rend  you?  What  constitutes 
the  bulwark  of  our  own  liberty  and  independ- 
ence? It  is  not  our  frowning  battlements,  our 
bristling  seacoasts,  our  army  and  our  navy. 
These  are  not  our  reliance  against  tyranny.  All 
of  those  may  be  turned  against  us  without  mak- 
ing us  w^eaker  for  the  struggle.  Our  reliance  is 
in  the  love  of  liberty  which  God  has  planted  in 
us.  Our  defence  is  in  the  spirit  wdiich  prized 
liberty  as  the  heritage  of  all  men,  in  all  lands 
everywhere.  Destroy  this  spirit  and  you  have 
planted  the  seeds  of  despotism  at  your  own  doors. 
Familiarize  yourselves  with  the  chains  of  bond- 
age and  you  prepare  your  own  limbs  to  wear 
them.  Accustomed  to  trample  on  the  rights  of 
others,  you  have  lost  the  genius  of  your  own  in- 
dependence and  become  the  fit  subjects  of  the 
first  cunning  tyrant  v/ho  rises  among  3^ou.  And 
let  me  tell  you,  that  all  these  things  are  prepared 
for  you  by  the  teachings  of  history,  if  the  elec- 
tions shall  promise  that  the  next  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision and  all  future  decisions  will  be  quietly  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  people. 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  231 

Third  Joint  Debate,  at  Jonesboro. 

September  15,  1858. 

Air.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  appear  before  you  to-day  in 
pursuance  of  a  previous  notice,  and  have  made  ar- 
rangements with  Air.  Lincoln  to  divide  time,  and  dis- 
cuss with  him  the  leading  political  topics  that  now 
agitate  the  country. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great 
political  parties  known  as  Whig  and  Democratic. 
These  parties  differed  from  each  other  on  certain 
questions  which  were  then  deemed  to  be  important  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  republic.  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats differed  about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the 
specie  circular,  and  the  subtreasury.  On  those  issues 
we  went  before  the  country,  and  discussed  the  prin- 
ciples, objects,  and  measures  of  the  two  great  parties. 
Each  of  the  parties  could  proclaim  its  principles  in 
Louisiana  as  well  as  in  Massachusetts,  in  Kentucky  as 
well  as  in  Illinois.  Since  that  period,  a  great  revolu- 
tion has  taken  place  in  the  formation  of  parties,  by 
which  they  now  seem  to  be  divided  by  a  geographical 
line,  a  large  party  in  the  North  being  arrayed  under 
the  Abolition  or  Republican  banner,  in  hostility  to  the 
Southern  States,  Southern  people,  and  Southern  in- 
stitutions. It  becomes  important  for  us  to  inquire 
how  this  transformation  of  parties  has  occurred,  made 
from  those  of  national  principles  to  geographical 
factions.  You  remember  that  in  1850 — this  country 
was  agitated  from  its  center  to  its  circumference  about 
this  slavery  question — it  became  necessary  for  the 
leaders  of  the  great  Whig  party  and  the  leaders  of  the 
great  Democratic  party  to  postpone  for  the  time  being 
their  particular  disputes,  and  unite  first  to  save  the 
Union  before  they  should  quarrel  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  it  was  to  be  governed.  During  the  Congress 
of  1849-50,  Henry  Clay  was  the  leader  of  the  Union 
men,  supported  by  Cass  and  Webster,  and  the  leaders 
of  the  Democracy  and  the  leaders  of  the  Whigs,  in  op- 
position to  Northern  Abolitionists  or  Southern  Dis- 
unionists.  The  great  contest  of  1850  resulted  in  the 
establishment    of    the    compromise    measures    of    that 


232  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

year,  which  measures  rested  on  the  great  principle  that 
the  people   of  each   State  and  each  Territory  of  this 
Union    ought   to   be   permitted   to   regulate   their   own 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  to  no 
other  Hmitation  than  that  which  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion imposes. 
_  I  now  wish  to  ask  you  whether  that  principle  was 
right  or  wrong  which  guaranteed  to  every  State  and 
every  community  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves.     These  meas- 
ures were  adopted,  as  I   have  previously  said,  by  the 
joint  action  of  the  Union  Whigs  and  Union  Democrats 
in  opposition  to  Northern  Abolitionists  and  Southern 
Disunionists.       In    1858,    when    the    Whig    party    as- 
sembled at   Baltimore   in  national   convention  for  the 
last  time,  they  adopted  the  principle  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  as  their  rule  of  party  action  in  the 
future.     One   month  thereafter  the   Democrats   assem- 
bled at  the  same  place  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  the 
presidency,   and   declared  the  same   great   principle  as 
the  rule  of  action  by  which  the  Democracy  would  be 
governed.       The    presidential    election    of     1852    was 
fought    on    that    basis.       It    is    true    that    the    Whigs 
claimied     special     merit    for    the     adoption     of    those 
measures,  because  they  asserted  that  their  great  Clay 
originated  them,  their  godlike  Webster  defended  them, 
and  their  Fillmore  signed  the  bill  making  them  the  law 
of  the  land;   but   on   the   other   hand,   the    Democrats 
claimed    special    credit    for   the    Democracy   upon   the 
ground   that    we    gave    twice   as    many    votes    in    both 
houses  of  Congress  for  the  passage  of  these  measures 
as  the  Whig  party. 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  presidential  election  of 
1852  the  Whigs  were  pledged  by  their  platform  and 
their  candidate  to  the  principle  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  the  Democracy  were  likewise 
pledged  by  our  principles,  our  platform,  and  our 
candidate  to  the  same  line  of  policy,  to  preserve  peace 
and  quiet  between  the  dififerent  sections  of  this  Union. 
Since  that  period  the  Whig  party  has  been  transformed 
into  a  sectional  party,  under  the  name  of  the  Republican 
party,  whilst  the  Democratic  party  continues  the  same 
national  party  it  was  at  that  day.  All  sectional  men, 
all  men  of  Abolition  sentiments  and  principles,  no 
matter   whether   they   were    old   Abolitionists    or   had 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  233 

been  Whigs  or  Democrats,  rally  under  the  sectional 
Republican  banner,  and  consequently  all  national  men, 
all  Union-loving  men,  whether  Whigs,  Democrats,  or 
by  whatever  name  they  have  been  known,  ought  .to 
rally  under  the  Stars  and  Stripes  in  defense  of  the 
Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  of  the  Union 
as  it  has  existed  under  the  Constitution. 

How  has  this  departure  from  the  faith  of  the 
Dem.ocracy  and  the  faith  of  the  Whig  party  been  ac- 
complished? In  1854,  certain  restless,  ambitious,  and 
disappointed  politicians  throughout  the  land  took  ad- 
vantage of  the  temporary  excitement  created  by  the 
Nebraska  bill  to  try  and  dissolve  the  Old  Whig  party 
and  the  old  Democratic  party,  to  Abolitionize  their 
members,  and  lead  them,  bound  hand  and  foot,  cap- 
tives into  the  Abolition  camp.  In  the  State  of  New 
York  a  convention  was  held  by  some  of  these  men, 
and  a  platform  adopted,  every  plank  of  which  was  as 
black  as  night,  each  one  relating  to  the  negro,  and  not 
one  referring  to  the  interests  of  the  white  man.  That 
example  was  followed  throughout  the  Northern  States, 
the  effort  being  made  to  combine  all  the  free  States  in 
hostile  array  against  the  slave  States.  The  men  who 
thus  thought  that  they  could  build  up  a  great  sectional 
part}',  and  through  its  organization  control  the  politi- 
cal destinies  of  this  country,  based  all  their  hopes  on 
the  single  fact  that  the  North  was  the  stronger  division 
of  the  nation,  and  hence,  if  the  North  could  be  com- 
bined against  the  South,  a  sure  victory  awaited  their 
efforts.  I  am  doing  no  more  than  justice  to  the  truth 
of  history  when  I  say  that  in  this  State  Abraham 
Lincoln,  on  behalf  of  the  Whigs,  and  Lyman  Trum- 
bull, on  behalf  of  the  Democrats,  were  the  leaders  who 
undertook  to  perform  this  grand  scheme  of  Abolition- 
izing  the  two  parties  to  which  they  belonged.  They 
had  a  private  arrangement  as  to  what  should  be  the 
political  destiny  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties  be- 
fore they  went  into  the  operation.  The  arrangement 
was  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  to  take  the  old-line  Whigs 
with  him,  claiming  that  he  was  still  as  good  a  Whig  as 
ever,  over  to  the  Abolitionists,  and  Mr.  Trumbull  was 
to  run  for  Congress  in  the  Belleville  district,  and, 
claiming  to  be  a  good  Democrat,  coax  the  old  Demo- 
crats into  the  Abolition  camp,  and  when,  by  the  joint 
efforts   of  the   Abolitionized  Whigs,  the  Abolitionized 


234  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

Democrats,  and  the  old-line  Abolition  and  Free-soil 
party  of  this  State,  they  should  secure  a  majority  in 
the  legislature,  Lincoln  was  then  to  be  made  United 
States  senator  in  Shields's  place,  Trumbull  remaining  in 
Congress  until  I  should  be  accommodating  enough  to 
die  or  resign,  and  give  him  a  chance  to  follow  Lincoln. 
That  was  a  very  nice  little  bargain  so  far  as  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull  were  concerned,  if  it  had  been  carried 
out  in  good  faith,  and  friend  Lincoln  had  attained  to 
senatorial  dignity  according  to  the  contract.  They  went 
into  the  contest  in  every  part  of  the  State,  calling  upon 
all  disappointed  politicians  to  join  in  the  crusade 
against  the  Democrac3%  and  appealed  to  the  prevailing 
sentiments  and  prejudices  in  all  the  northern  counties 
of  the  State.  In  three  congressional  districts  in  the 
north  end  of  the  State  they  adopted,  as  the  platform  of 
this  new  party  thus  formed  by  Lincoln  and  Trumbull 
in  connection  with  the  Abolitionists,  all  of  those 
principles  which  aimed  at  a  warfare  on  the  part  of  the 
North  against  the  South.  They  declared  in  that  plat- 
form that  the  Wilmot  proviso  was  to  be  applied  to  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  North  as  well  as 
South  of  36°  30',  and  not  only  to  all  the  territory  we 
then  had,  but  all  that  we  might  hereafter  acquire;  that 
hereafter  no  more  slave  States  should  be  admitted  into 
this  Union,  even  if  the  people  of  such  States  desired 
slavery;  that  the  fugitive-slave  law  should  be  absolutely 
and  unconditionally  repealed;  that  slavery  should  be 
abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  that  the  slave- 
trade  should  be  abolished  between  the  different  States, 
and,  in  fact,  every  article  in  their  creed  related  to  this 
slavery  question,  and  pointed  to  a  Northern  geo- 
graphical party  in  hostility  to  the  Southern  States  of 
this  Union. 

Such  were  their  principles  in  northern  Illinois.  A 
little  further  south  they  became  bleached  and  grew 
paler  just  in  proportion  as  public  sentiment  moderated 
and  changed  in  this  direction.  They  were  Republicans 
or  Abolitionists  in  the  North,  anti-Nebraska  men 
down  about  Springfield,  and  in  this  neighborhood  they 
contented  themselves  with  talking  about  the  inex- 
pediency of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
In  the  extreme  northern  counties  they  brought  out 
men  to  canvass  the  State  whose  complexion  suited 
their  political   creed,    and   hence    Fred   Douglass,   the 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  235 

negro,  was  to  be  found  there,  following  General  Cass, 
and  attempting  to  speak  on  behalf  of  Lincoln,  Trum- 
bull, and  Abolitionism,  against  that  illustrious  senator. 
Why,  they  brought  Fred  Douglass  to  Freeport,  when 
I  was  addressing  a  meeting  there,  in  a  carriage  driven 
by  the  white  owner,  the  negro  sitting  inside  with  the 
white  lady  and  her  daughter.  When  I  got  through 
canvassing  the  northern  counties  that  year,  and 
progressed  as  far  south  as  Springfield,  I  was  met  and 
opposed  in  discussion  by  Lincoln,  Lovejoy,  Trumbull, 
and  Sidney  Breese,  who  were  on  one  side.  Father 
Giddings.  the  high  priest  of  Abolitionism,  had  just  been 
there,  and  Chase  came  about  the  time  I  left.  {''Why 
didn't  you  shoot  himr']  I  did  take  a  running  shot  at 
them,  but  as  I  was  single-handed  against  the  white, 
black,  and  mixed  drove.  I  had  to  use  a  shot-gun  and 
fire  into  the  crowd  instead  of  taking  them  off  singly 
with  a  rifle.  Trumbull  had  for  his  lieutenants  in  aid- 
ing him  to  Abolitionize  the  Democracy,  such  men  as 
John  Wentworth  of  Chicago,  Governor  Reynolds  of 
Belleville,  Sidney  Breese  of  Carlisle,  and  John 
Dougherty  of  Union,  each  of  whom  modified  his 
opinions  to  suit  the  locality  he  was  in.  Dougherty, 
for  instance,  would  not  go  much  further  than  to  talk 
about  the  inexpediency  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  whilst  his 
allies  at  Chicago  advocated  negro  citizenship  and 
negro  equality,  putting  the  white  man  and  the  negro 
on  the  same  basis  under  the  law.  Now  these  men, 
four  years  ago,  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  break 
down  the  Democracy;  to-day  they  are  again  acting 
together  for  the  same  purpose!  They  do  not  hoist  the 
same  flag;  they  do  not  own  the  same  principles,  or 
profess  the  same  faith;  but  conceal  their  union  for  the 
sake  of  policy.  In  the  northern  counties  you  find 
that  all  the  conventions  are  called  in  the  name  of  the 
Black  Republican  party;  at  Springfield  they  dare  not 
call  a  Republican  convention,  but  invite  all  the  enemies 
of  the  Democracy  to  unite,  and  when  they  get  down 
into  Egypt,  Trumbull  issues  notices  calling  upon  the 
"Free  Democracy"  to  assemble  and  hear  him  speak. 
I  have  one  of  the  handbills  calling  a  Trumbull  meeting 
at  Waterloo  the  other  day,  which  I  received  there, 
which  is  in  the  following  language: 

A   meeting   of   the   Free    Democracy   will   take  place   in 
Waterloo,    on    Monday,    Sept.     13th    inst.,    whereat    Hon. 


236  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  Jehu  Baker,  and  others  will  address 
the  people  upon  the  different  political  topics  of  the  day. 
Members  of  all  parties  are  cordially  invited  to  be  present 
and  hear  and  determine  for  themselves. 

The  Monroe  Free  Democracy. 


What  is  that  name  of  "Free  Democrats"  put  forth 
for  unless  to  deceive  the  people,  and  make  them 
believe  that  Trumbull  and  his  follow^ers  are  not  the 
same  party  as  that  which  raises  the  black  flag  of 
Abolitionism  in  the  northern  part  of  this  State,  and 
makes  war  upon  the  Democratic  part}'-  throughout  the 
State?  When  I  put  that  question  to  them  at  Waterloo 
on  Saturday  last,  one  of  them  rose  and  stated  that  they 
had  changed  their  name  for  political  effect  in  order 
to  get  votes.  There  was  a  candid  admission.  Their 
object  in  changing  their  party  organization  and  prin- 
ciples in  dififerent  localities  was  avowed  to  be  an 
attempt  to  cheat  and  deceive  some  portion  of  the 
people  until  after  the  election.  Why  cannot  a  political 
party  that  is  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of  its  purposes 
and  the  soundness  of  its  principles  declare  them  every- 
where alike?  I  would  disdain  to  hold  any  political 
principles  that  I  could  not  avow  in  the  same  terms  in 
Kentucky  that  I  declared  in  Illinois,  in  Charleston  as 
well  as  in  Chicago,  in  New  Orleans  as  well  as  in  New- 
York.  So  long  as  we  live  under  a  constitution  com- 
mon to  all  the  States,  our  political  faith  ought  to  be 
as  broad,  as  liberal,  and  just  as  that  constitution  itself, 
and  should  be  proclaimed  alike  in  every  portion  of  the 
Union.  But  it  is  apparent  that  our  opponents  find  it 
necessary  for  partisan  efTect,  to  change  their  colors 
in  different  counties  in  order  to  catch  the  popular 
breeze,  and  hope  with  these  discordant  materials  com- 
bined together  to  secure  a  majority  in  the  legislature 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  the  Democratic  party. 
This  combination  did  succeed  in  1854  so  far  as  to  elect 
a  majority  of  their  confederates  to  the  legislature,  and 
the  first  important  act  which  they  performed  was  to 
elect  a  senator  in  the  place  of  the  eminent  and  gallant 
Senator  Shields.  His  term  expired  in  the  United 
States  Senate  at  that  time,  and  he  had  to  be  crushed  by 
the  Abolition  coalition  for  the  simple  reason  that  he 
would  not  join  in  their  conspiracy  to  wage  war  against 
one  half  of  the  Union.     That  was  the  only  objection  to 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  237 

General  Shields.  He  had  served  the  people  of  the 
State  with  ability  in  the  legislature,  he  had  served  you 
with  fidelity  and  ability  as  auditor,  he  had  performed 
his  duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  country  at 
the  head  of  the  Land  Department  at  Washington,  he 
had  covered  the  State  and  the  Union  with  immortal 
glory  on  the  bloody  fields  of  Mexico  in  defense  of  the 
honor  of  our  flag,  and  yet  he  had  to  be  stricken  down 
by  this  unholy  combination.  And  for  what  cause? 
Merely  because  he  would  not  join  a  combination  of 
one  half  of  the  States  to  make  war  upon  the  other  half, 
after  having  poured  out  his  heart's  blood  for  all  the 
States  in  the  Union.  Trumbull  was  put  in  his  place 
by  Abolitionism.     How  did  Trumbull  get  there? 

Before  the  Abolitionists  would  consent  to  go  into 
an  election  for  United  States  senator,  they  required  all 
the  members  of  this  new  combination  to  show  their 
hands  upon  this  question  of  Abolitionism.  Lovejoy, 
one  of  their  high  priests,  brought  in  resolutions  de- 
fining the  Abolition  creed,  and  required  them  to  com- 
mit themselves  on  it  by  their  votes — yea  or  nay.  In 
that  creed  as  laid  down  by  Lovejoy,  they  declared  first, 
that  the  Wilmot  proviso  must  be  put  on  all  the  Ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States,  north  as  well  as  south  of 
36°  30',  and  that  no  more  territory  should  ever  be 
acquired  unless  slavery  was  at  first  prohibited  therein; 
second,  that  no  more  States  should  ever  be  received 
into  the  Union  unless  slavery  was  first  prohibited,  by 
constitutional  provision,  in  such  States;  third,  that  the 
fugitive-slave  law  must  be  immediately  repealed,  or, 
failing  in  that,  then  such  amendments  were  to  be  made 
to  it  as  would  render  it  useless  and  inefficient  for  the 
objects  for  which  it  was  passed,  etc.  The  next  day 
after  these  resolutions  were  offered  they  were  voted 
upon,  part  of  them  carried,  and  the  others  defeated, 
the  same  men  who  voted  for  them,  with  only  two  ex- 
ceptions, voting  soon  after  for  Abraham  Lincoln  as 
their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate.  He  came 
within  one  or  two  votes  of  being  elected,  but  he  could 
not  quite  get  the  number  required,  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  his  friend  Trumbull,  who  was  a  party  to  the 
bargain  by  which  Lincoln  was  to  take  Shields's  place, 
controlled  a  few  Abolitionized  Democrats  in  the  legis- 
lature, and  would  not  allow  them  all  to  vote  for  him, 
thus    wronging    Lincoln   by   permitting   him   on   each 


238  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

ballot  to  be  almost  elected,  but  not  quite,  until  he 
forced  them  to  drop  Lincoln  and  elect  him  (Trum- 
bull), in  order  to  unite  the  party.  Thus  you  find  that 
although  the  legislature  was  carried  that  year  by  the 
bargain  between  Trumbull,  Lincoln,  and  the  Aboli- 
tionists, and  the  union  of  these  discordant  elements  in 
one  harmonious  party,  yet  Trumbull  violated  his 
pledge,  and  played  a  Yankee  trick  on  Lincoln  when 
they  came  to  divide  the  spoils.  Perhaps  you  would 
like  a  little  evidence  on  this  point.  If  you  would,  I 
will  call  Colonel  James  H.  Matheny  of  Springfield, 
to  the  stand,  Mr.  Lincoln's  especial  confidential  friend 
for  the  last  twenty  years,  and  see  what  he  will  say 
upon  the  subject  of  this  bargain.  Matheny  is  now  the 
Black  Republican  or  Abolition  candidate  for  Congress 
in  the  Springfield  district  against  the  gallant  Colonel 
Harris,  and  is  making  speches  all  over  that  part  of 
the  State  against  me  and  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  in  con- 
cert with  Trumbull.  He  ought  to  be  a  good  witness, 
and  I  will  read  an  extract  from  a  speech  which  he 
made  in  1856,  when  he  was  mad  because  his  friend  Lin- 
coin  had  been  cheated.  It  is  one  of  numerous  speeches 
of  the  same  tenor  that  were  made  about  that  time, 
exposing  this  bargain  between  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  and 
the  Abolitionists.     Matheny  then  said: 

The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know-nothings,  and  renegade 
Democrats  made  a  solemn  compact  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy  on  this  plan  : 
First,  that  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trum- 
bull to  Congress,  and  thereby  carry  his  district  for  the 
legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength  that  could 
be  obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats  ;  second, 
that  when  the  legislature  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that 
body,  such  as  speaker,  clerks,  doorkeepers,  etc.,  M'ould 
be  given  to  the  Abolitionists ;  and  third,  that  the  Whigs 
were  to  have  the  United  States  senator.  That,  accordingly, 
in  good  faith,  Trumbull  was  elected  to  Congress,  and  his 
district  carried  for  the  legislature,  and,  when  it  convened 
the  Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that  body,  and  thus 
far  the  "bond"  was  fairly  executed.  The  Whigs,  on  their 
part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the 
other  parties  to  the  contract  having  already  secured  to 
themselves  all  that  was  called  for.  But,  in  the  most 
perfidious  manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln ; 
and   the    mean,    low-lived,    sneaking    Trumbull    succeeded, 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO 


239 


by  pledging  all  that  was  required  by  any  party,  in  thrusting 
Lincoln  aside  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from 
the  rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United  States 
Senate;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that  an  honest  man 
makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or  contracts  with 
rogues. 

Matheny  thought  his  friend  Lincoln  made  a  bad 
bargain  when  he  conspired  and  contracted  with  such 
rogues  as  Trumbull  and  his  Abolition  associates  in 
that  campaign.  Lincoln  was  shoved  off  the  track,  and 
he  and  his  friends  all  at  once  began  to  mope;  became 
sour  and  mad,  and  disposed  to  tell,  but  dare  not;  and 
thus  they  stood  for  a  long  time,  until  the  Abolitionists 
coaxed  and  flattered  him  back  by  their  assurances  that 
he  should  certainly  be  a  senator  in  Douglas's  place. 
In  that  way  the  Abolitionists  have  been  able  to  hold 
Lincoln  to  the  alliance  up  to  this  time,  and  now  they 
have  brought  him  into  a  fight  against  me,  and  he  is  to 
see  if  he  is  again  to  be  cheated  by  them.  Lincoln  this 
time,  though,  required  more  of  them  than  a  promise, 
and  holds  their  bond,  if  not  security,  that  Lovejoy 
shall  not  cheat  him  as  Trumbull  did. 

When  the  Republican  convention  assembled  at  Spring- 
field in  June  last,  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  State 
officers  only,  the  Abolitionists  could  not  get  Lincoln  and 
his  friends  into  it  until  they  would  pledge  themselves  that 
Lincoln  should  be  their  candidate  for  the  Senate ;  and 
you  will  find,  in  proof  of  this,  that  that  convention 
passed  a  resolution  unanimously  declaring  that  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  was  the  "first,  last,  and  only  choice"  of  the 
Republicans  for  United  States  senator.  He  was  not 
willing  to  have  it  understood  that  he  was  merely  their 
first  choice,  or  their  last  choice,  but  their  only 
choice.  The  Black  Republican  party  had  nobody 
else.  Brov/ning  was  nowhere ;  Governor  Bissell  was 
of  no  account ;  Archie  Williams  was  not  taken 
into  consideration;  John  Wentworth  was  uot  worth 
mentioning;  John  M.  Palmer  was  degraded;  and 
their  party  presented  the  extraordinary  spectacle 
of  having  but  one — the  first,  the  last,  and  only 
choice  for  the  Senate.  Suppose  that  Lincoln  should  die, 
what  a  horrible  condition  the  Republican  party  would 
be  in  !  They  would  have  nobody  left.  They  have  no 
other  choice,  and  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  put 
themselves  before  the  world  in  this  ludicrous,  ridiculous 


240  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS      [Sept.  15 

attitude  of  having  no  other  choice  in  order  to  quiet 
Lincoln's  suspicions,  and  assure  him  that  he  was  not 
to  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy,  and  the  trickery  by  which 
Trumbull  out-generaled  him.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  think 
they  will  have  a  nice  time  of  it  before  they  get  thtough. 
I  do  not  intend  to  give  them  any  chance  to  cheat  Lin- 
coln at  all  this  time.  I  intend  to  relieve  him  of  all 
anxiety  upon  that  subject,  and  spare  them  the  mortifica- 
tion of  more  exposures  of  contracts  violated,  and  the 
pledged  honor  of  rogues  forfeited. 

But  I  wish  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  chief  points 
at  issue  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  in  this  discus- 
sion. Mr.  Lincoln,  knowing  that  he  was  to  be  the  candi- 
date of  his  party  on  account  of  the  arrangement  of 
which  I  have  already  spoken,  knowing  that  be  was  to 
receive  the  nomination  of  the  convention  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  had  his  speech,  accepting  that  nomination, 
all  written  and  committed  to  memory,  ready  to  be  deliv- 
ered the  moment  the  nomination  was  announced.  Ac- 
cordingly when  it  was  made  he  was  in  readiness  and 
delivered  his  speech,  a  portion  of  which  I  will  read  in 
order  that  I  may  state  his  political  principles  fairly,  by 
repeating  them  in  his  own  language : 

We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was 
instituted  for  the  avowed  object,  and  with  the  confident 
promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation  ;  under  the 
operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  I  believe  it  will 
not  cease  tmtil  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed. 
"A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis- 
solved— I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect 
it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing 
or  all  the  other.  J^ither  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  spread  of  it.  and  place  it  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward 
until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  North  as 
well  as  South. 

There  you  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  and  main  pro- 
position, upon  which  he  bases  his  claims,  stated  in  his 
own  language.  He  tells  you  that  this  republic  can- 
not endure  permanently  divided  into  slave  and  free 
States,  as  our  fathers  made  it.     He  says  that  they  must 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  241 

all  become  free  or  all  become  slave,  that  they  must  all 
be  one  thing  or  all  be  the  other,  or  this  government 
cannot  last.  Why  can  it  not  last,  if  we  will  execute  the 
governmient  in  the  same  spirit  and  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciples upon  which  it  is  founded?  Lincoln,  by  his  propo- 
sition, says  to  the  South,  *'If  you  desire  to  maintain 
your  institutions  as  they  are  now,  you  must  not  be  satis- 
fied with  minding  your  own  business,  but  you  must  in- 
vade Illinois  and  all  the  other  Northern  States,  estab- 
lish slavery  in  them,  and  make  it  universal"  ;  and  in  the 
same  language  he  says  to  the  North,  "Vou  must  not  be 
content  with  regulating  your  own  affairs,  and  minding 
3'our  own  business,  but  if  you  desire  to  maintain  your 
freedom,  you  must  invade  the  Southern  States,  abolish 
slavery  there  and  everywhere,  in  order  to  have  the 
States  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  I  say  that  this  is 
the  inevitable  and  irresistible  result  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
argument,  inviting  a  warfare  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  to  be  carried  on  with  ruthless  vengeance,  until 
the  one  section  or  the  other  shall  be  driven  to  the  wall, 
and  become  the  victim  of  the  rapacity  of  the  other. 
What  good  would  follow  such  a  system  of  warfare? 
Suppose  the  North  should  succeed  in  conquering  the 
South,  how  much  would  she  be  the  gainer?  or  suppose 
the  South  should  conquer  the  North,  could  the  Union 
be  preserved  in  that  way?  Is  this  sectional  warfare  to 
be  waged  between  Northern  States  and  Southern  States 
until  they  all  shall  become  uniform  in  their  local  and 
domestic  institutions  merely  because  ^Ir.  Lincoln  says 
that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  and  pre- 
tends that  this  scriptural  quotation,  this  language  of  our 
Lord  and  ]\Iaster,  is  applicable  to  the  American  Union 
and  the  American  Constitution?  Washington  and  his 
compeers,  in  the  convention  that  framed  the  Constitu- 
tion,  made  this  government  divided  into  free  and  slave 
States.  It  was  composed  then  of  thirteen  sovereign  and 
independent  States,  each  having  sovereign  authority  over 
its  local  and  domestic  institutions,  and  all  bound  together 
by  the  Federal  Constitution.  ]Mr.  Lincoln  likens  that 
bond  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  joining  free  and  slave 
States  together,  to  a  house  divided  against  itself,  and 
says  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  and  cannot 
stand.  When  did  he  learn,  and  by  what  authority  does 
he  proclaim,  that  this  government  is  contrary  to  the  law 
of  God  and  cannot  stand?     It  has  stood  thus  divided 


242  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

into  free  and  slave  States  from  its  organization  up  to 
this  day. 

During  that  period  we  have  increased  from  four  mil- 
lions to  thirty  millions  of  people ;  we  have  extended  our 
territory  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific  ocean;  we 
have  acquired  the  Floridas  and  Texas,  and  other  terri- 
tory sufficient  to  double  our  geographical  extent ;  we 
have  increased  in  population,  in  wealth,  and  in  power 
beyond  any  example  on  earth ;  we  have  risen  from  a 
weak  and  feeble  power  to  become  the  terror  and  admi- 
ration of  the  civilized  world;  and  all  this  has  been  done 
under  a  Constitution  which  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  substance, 
says  is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  under  a  Union 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
thinks,  because  of  such  division,  cannot  stand.  Surely, 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  wiser  man  than  those  who  framed  the 
government.  Washington  did  not  believe,  nor  did  his 
compatriots,  that  the  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions 
that  were  well  adapted  to  the  Green  Mountains  of  Ver- 
mont were  suited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Caro- 
lina ;  they  did  not  believe  at  that  day  that  in  a  republic 
so  broad  and  expanded  as  this,  containing  such  a  variety 
of  climate,  soil,  and  interest,  uniformity  in  the  local 
laws  and  domestic  institutions  was  either  desirable  or 
possible.  They  believed  then,  as  our  experience  has 
proved  to  us  now,  that  each  locality,  having  different 
interests,  a  different  climate,  and  different  surroundings, 
required  different  local  laws,  local  policy,  and  local 
institutions,  adapted  to  the  wants  of  that  locality.  Thus 
our  government  was  formed  on  the  principle  of  diver- 
sity in  the  local  institutions  and  laws,  and  not  on  that 
of  uniformity. 

As  my  time  flies,  I  can  only  glance  at  these  points  and 
not  present  them  as  fully  as  I  would  wish,  because  I 
desire  to  bring  all  the  points  in  controversy  between  the 
two  parties  before  you  in  order  to  have  Mr.  Lincolh's 
reply.  He  makes  Avar  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  the  case  known  as  the  Dred  Scott  case.  I 
wish  to  say  to  you.  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  no  war 
to  make  on  that  decision,  or  any  other  ever  rendered  by 
the  Supreme  Court.  I  am  content  to  take  that  decision 
as  it  stands  delivered  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on 
earth,  a  tribunal  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  for  that  purpose,  and  hence  that  decision 
becomes  the  law  of  the  land,  binding  on  you,  on  me, 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  243 

and  on  every  other  good  citizen,  whether  we  like  it  or 
not.  Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  go  into  an  argument  to 
prove,  before  this  audience,  wdiether  or  not  Chief 
Justice  Taney  understood  the  law  better  than  Abraham 
Lincoln. 

Mr.  Lincoln  objects  to  that  decision,  first  and  mainly 
because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  rights  of  citizenship, 
I  am  as  much  opposed  to  his  reason  for  that  objection 
as  I  am  to  the  objection  itself.  I  hold  that  a  negro  is 
not  and  never  ought  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
I  hold  that  this  government  was  made  on  the  white 
basis,  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and 
their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  administered  by 
white  men,  and  none  others.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
Almighty  made  the  negro  capable  of  self-government. 
I  am  aware  that  all  the  Abolition  lecturers  that  you  find 
traveling  about  through  the  country,  are  in  the  habit  of 
reading  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that 
all  m.en  were  created  equal  and  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which 
are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  very  much  in  the  habit  of  following  in  the 
track  of  Lovejoy  in  this  particular,  by  reading  that  part 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that  the 
negro  was  endowed  by  the  Almighty  with  the  inaliena- 
ble right  of  equality  with  white  men.  Now,  I  say  to 
you,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  in  my  opinion  the  signers 
of  the  Declaration  had  no  reference  to  the  negro  what- 
ever, wheu  they  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal. 
They  desired  to  express  by  that  phrase  white  men,  men 
of  European  birth  and  European  descent,  and  had  no 
reference  either  to  the  negro,  the  savage  Indians,  the 
Feejee,  the  Malay,  or  any  other  inferior  and  degraded 
race,  when  they  spoke  of  the  equality  of  men.  One  great 
evidence  that  such  was  their  understanding,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  at  that  time  every  one  of  the 
thirteen  colonies  was  a  slaveholding  colony,  every  signer 
of  the  Declaration  represented  a  slaveholding  constitu- 
ency, and  we  know  that  no  one  of  them  emancipated  his 
slaves,  much  less  offered  citizenship  to  them,  when  they 
signed  the  Declaration ;  and  yet,  if  they  intended  to 
declare  that  the  negro  was  the  equal  of  the  white  man, 
and  entitled  by  divine  right  to  an  equality  with  him, 
they  were  bound,  as  honest  men,  that  day  and  hour  to 
have  put  their  negroes  on  an  equality  with  themselves. 


244  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

Instead  of  doing  so,  with  uplifted  eyes  to  heaven  the)^ 
implored  the  divine  blessing  upon  them,  during  the 
seven  years'  bloody  war  they  had  to  fight  to  maintain 
that  Declaration,  never  dreaming  that  they  were  violat- 
ing divine  law  by  still  holding  the  negroes  in  bondage 
and  depriving  them  of  equality. 

My  friends,  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving  this  govern- 
ment as  our  fathers  made  it.  It  does  not  follow  by  any 
means  that  because  a  negro  is  not  your  equal  or  mine, 
that  hence  he  must  necessarily  be  a  slave.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the 
negro  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity 
which  he  is  capable  of  enjoying,  consistent  with  the 
good  of  society.  When  you  ask  me  what  these  rights 
are,  what  their  nature  and  extent  is,  I  tell  you  that  that 
is  a  question  which  each  State  of  this  Union  must  decide 
for  itself.  Illinois  has  already  decided  the  question. 
We  have  decided  that  the  negro  must  not  be  a  slave 
within  our  limits ;  but  we  have  also  decided  that  the 
negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen  within  our  limits ;  that  he 
shall  not  vote,  hold  office,  or  exercise  any  political 
rights.  I  maintain  that  Illinois,  as  a  sovereign  State, 
has  a  right  thus  to  fix  her  policy  with  reference  to  the 
relation  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro ;  but 
while  we  had  that  right  to  decide  the  question  for  our- 
selves, we  must  recognize  the  same  right  in  Kentucky 
and  in  every  other  State  to  make  the  same  decision,  or  a 
different  one.  Having  decided  our  own  policy  with 
reference  to  the  black  race,  we  must  leave  Kentucky  and 
Missouri  and  every  other  State  perfectly  free  to  make 
just  such  a  decision  as  they  see  proper  on  that 
question. 

Kentucky  has  decided  that  question  for  herself.  She 
has  said  that  within  her  limits  a  negro  shall  not  exer- 
cise any  political  rights,  and  she  has  also  said  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  negroes  under  the  laws  of  that  State  shall 
be  slaves.  She  had  as  much  right  to  adopt  that  as  her 
policy  as  we  had  to  adopt  the  contrary  for  our  policy. 
New  York  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  may 
vote  if  he  has  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of 
property,  and  if  he  owns  that  much  he  may  vote  upon 
an  equality  with  the  white  man.  I,  for  one,  am  utterly 
opposed  to  negro  suffrage  anyv/here  and  under  any  cir- 
cumstances ;  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Court  has 
decided  in  the  celebrated  Dred  Scott  case  that  a  State 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  245 

has  a  right  to  confer  the  privilege  of  voting  upon  free 
negroes,  I  am  not  going  to  make  war  upon  New  York 
because  she  has  adopted  a  poHcy  repugnant  to  my  feel- 
ings. But  New  York  must  mind  her  own  business,  and 
keep  her  negro  suffrage  to  herself,  and  not  attempt  to 
force  it  upon  us. 

In  the  State  of  Maine  they  have  decided  that  a  negro 
may  vote  and  hold  office  on  an  equality  with  a  white 
man.  I  had  occasion  to  say  to  the  senators  from  Maine, 
in  a  discussion  last  session,  that  if  they  thought  that  the 
white  people  within  the  limits  of  their  State  were  no 
better  than  negroes,  I  would  not  quarrel  with  them  for 
it,  but  they  must  not  say  that  my  white  constituents  of 
Illinois  were  no  better  than  negroes,  or  we  would  be 
sure  to  quarrel. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  question, 
and  declares  that  each  State  has  the  right  to  settle  this 
question  of  suffrage  for  itself,  and  all  questions  as  to 
the  relations  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro. 
Judge  Taney  expressly  lays  down  the  doctrine.  I  re- 
ceive it  as  law,  and  I  say  that  while  those  States  are 
adopting  regulations  on  that  subject  disgusting  and  ab- 
horrent, according  to  my  views,  I  will  not  make  war  on 
them  if  they  will  mind  their  own  business  and  let  us 
alone. 

I  now  come  back  to  the  question,  why  cannot  this 
Union  exist  forever  divided  into  free  and  slave  States, 
as  our  fathers  made  it?  It  can  thus  exist  if  each  State 
will  carry  out  the  principles  upon  which  our  institutions 
were  founded — to  wit,  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as 
it  pleases,  without  meddling  with  its  neiglibors._  Just 
act  upon  that  great  principle,  and  this  Union  will  not 
only  live  forever,  but  it  will  extend  and  expand  until  it 
covers  the  whole  continent,  and  makes  this  confederacy 
one  grand,  ocean-bound  republic.  We  must  bear  in 
mind  that  we  are  yet  a  young  nation,  growing  with  a 
rapidity  unequaled  in  the  history  of  the  world,  that  our 
national  increase  is  great,  and  that  the  emigration  from 
the  Old  World  is  increasing,  requiring  us  to  expand 
and  acquire  new  territory  from  time  to  time,  in  order 
to  give  our  people  land  to  live  upon. 

If  we  live  up  to  the  principle  of  State  rights  and  State 
sovereignty,  each  State  regulating  its  own  affairs  and 
minding  its  own  business,  we  can  go  on  and  extend 
indefinitely,  just  as  fast  and  as  far  as  we  need  the  terri- 


246  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

tory.  The  time  may  come,  indeed  has  now  come,  when 
our  interests  would  be  advanced  by  the  acquisition  of  the 
island  of  Cuba.  When  we  get  Cuba  we  must  take  it  as 
we  find  it,  leaving  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of 
slavery  for  themselves,  without  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  Federal  Government,  or  of  any  State  of  this 
Union.  So  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  acquire  any 
portion  of  Mexico  or  Canada,  or  of  this  continent  or 
the  adjoining  islands,  we  must  take  them  as  we  find  them, 
leaving  the  people  free  to  do  as  they  please — to  have 
slavery  or  not,  as  they  choose.  I  never  have  inquired, 
and  never  will  inquire,  whether  a  new  State  applying  for 
admission  has  slavery  or  not  for  one  of  her  institutions. 
If  the  constitution  that  is  presented  be  the  act  and  deed 
of  the  people,  and  embodies  their  will,  and  they  have 
the  requisite  population,  I  will  admit  them  with  slavery 
or  without  it,  just  as  that  people  shall  determine.  My 
objection  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  did  not  consist 
in  the  fact  that  it  made  Kansas  a  slave  State.  I  would 
have  been  as  much  opposed  to  its  admission  under  such 
a  constitution  as  a  free  State  as  I  was  opposed  to  its  ad- 
mission under  it  as  a  slave  State.  I  hold  that  that  was 
a  question  which  that  people  had  a  right  to  decide  for 
themselves,  and  that  no  power  on  earth  ought  to  have 
interfered  with  that  decision.  In  my  opinion,  the  Le- 
compton constitution  was  not  th^  act  and  deed  of  the 
people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will,  and 
the  recent  election  in  that  Territory,  at  which  it  was 
voted  down  by  nearly  ten  to  one,  shows  conclusively 
that  I  was  right  in  saying,  when  the  constitution  was 
presented,  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people, 
and  did  not  embody  their  will. 

If  we  wish  to  preserve  our  institutions  in  their  purity 
and  transmit  them  unimpaired  to  our  latest  posterity,  we 
must  preserve  with  religious  good  faith  that  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government  which  guarantees  to  each  and 
every  State,  old  and  new,  the  right  to  make  just  such 
constitutions  as  they  desire,  and  come  into  the  Union 
with  their  own  constitution,  and  not  one  palmed  upon 
them.  Whenever  you  sanction  the  doctrine  that  Con- 
gress may  crowd  a  constitution  down  the  throats  of  an 
unwilling  people,  against  their  consent,  you  will  subvert 
the  great  fundamental  principle  upon  which  all  our  free 
institutions  rest.  In  the  future  I  have  no  fear  that  the 
attempt   will   ever   be    made.     President   Buchanan    de- 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  247 

dared  in  his  annual  message,  that  hereafter  the  rule 
adopted  in  the  Minnesota  case,  requiring  a  constitution 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  should  be  followed  in  all 
future  cases,  and  if  he  stands  by  that  recommendation 
there  will  be  no  division  in  the  Democratic  party  on  that 
principle  in  the  future.  Hence  the  great  mission  of  the 
Democracy  is  to  unite  the  fraternal  feeling  of  the  whole 
country,  restore  peace  and  quiet  by  teaching  each  State 
to  mind  its  own  business  and  regulate  its  own  domestic 
affairs,  and  all  to  unite  in  carrying  out  the  Constitution 
as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  thus  to  preserve  the  Union 
and  render  it  perpetual  in  all  time  to  come.  Why  should 
we  not  act  as  our  fathers  who  made  the  government? 
There  was  no  sectional  strife  in  Washington's  army. 
They  were  all  brethren  of  a  common  confederacy;  they 
fought  under  a  common  flag  that  they  might  bestow 
upon  their  posterity  a  common  destiny,  and  to  this  end 
they  poured  out  their  blood  in  common  streams,  and 
shared,  in  some  instances,  a  common  grave. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  There  is  very  much 
in  the  principles  that  Judge  Douglas  has  here 
enunciated  that  I  most  cordially  approve,  and 
over  which  I  shall  have  no  controversy  with  him. 
In  so  far  as  he  has  insisted  that  all  the  States 
have  the  right  to  do  exactly  as  they  please  about 
all  their  domestic  relations,  including  that  of 
slavery,  I  agree  entirely  with  him.  He  places 
me  wrong  in  spite  of  all  I  can  tell  him,  though  I 
repeat  it  again  and  again,  insisting  that  I  have 
made  no  difference  with  him  upon  this  subject. 
I  have  made  a  great  many  speeches,  some  of 
which  have  been  printed,  and  it  will  be  utterly 
impossible  for  him  to  find  anything  that  I  have 
ever  put  in  print  contrary  to  what  I  now  say 
upon  this  subject.  I  hold  myself  under  constitu- 
tional obligations  to  allow  the  people  in  all  the 
States,   without  interf'^^'ence,   direct  or   indirect. 


248  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       LSept.  15 

to  do  exactly  as  they  please,  and  I  deny  that  I 
have  any  inclination  to  interfere  with  then?,  even 
if  there  were  no  such  constitutional  obligation. 
I  can  only  say  again  that  I  am  placed  improperly 
— altogether  improperly,  in  spite  of  all  I  can  say 
— when  it  is  insisted  that  I  entertain  any  other 
view  or  purpose  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  will  make 
some  answers  briefly  to  certain  propositions  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  put.  He  says,  "Why  can't 
this  Union  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and 
half  free?"  I  have  said  that  I  supposed  it  could 
not,  and  I  will  try,  before  this  new  audience,  to 
give  briefly  some  of  the  reasons  for  entertaining 
that  opinion.  Another  form  of  his  question  is, 
''Why  can't  we  let  it  stand  as  our  fathers  placed 
it?"  That  is  the  exact  difficulty  between  us.  I 
say  that  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have 
changed  it  from  the  position  in  which  our  fathers 
originally  placed  it.  I  say,  in  the  way  our  fathers 
originally  left  the  slavery  question,  the  institu- 
tion was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  and 
the  public  mind  rested  in  the  belief  that  it  was 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  say  when 
this  government  was  first  established,  it  was  the 
policy  of  its  founders  to  prohibit  the  spread  of 
slavery  into  the  new  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  where  it  had  not  existed.  But  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  have  broken  up  that 
policy,  and  placed  it  upon  a  new  basis  by  which 
it  is  to  become  national  and  perpetual.  All  I 
have  asked  or  desired  anywhere  is  that  it  should 
be  placed  back  again  upon  the  basis  that  the 
fathers  of  our  government  originally  placed  it 
upon.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would  become  ex- 
tinct, for  all  time  to  come,  if  we  but  readopted 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  249 

the  policy  of  the  fathers  by  restricting  it  to  the 
limits  it  has  already  covered — restricting  it  from 
the  new  Territories. 

I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject  at  this  time,  but  allow  me 
to  repeat  one  thing  that  I  have  stated  before. 
Brooks,  the  man  who  assaulted  Senator  Sumner 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  who  was  compli- 
mented with  dinners,  and  silver  pitchers,  and 
gold-headed  canes,  and  a  good  many  other  things 
for  that  feat,  in  one  of  his  speeches  declared  that 
when  this  government  was  originally  established, 
nobody  expected  that  the  institution  of  slavery 
would  last  until  this  day.  That  was  but  the 
opinion  of  one  man,  but  it  was  such  an  opinion 
as  we  can  never  get  from  Judge  Douglas,  or  any- 
body in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  North  at  all.  You 
can  sometimes  get  it  from  a  Southern  man.  He 
said  at  the  same  time  that  the  framers  of  our 
government  did  not  have  the  knowledge  that  ex- 
perience has  taught  us — that  experience  and  the 
invention  of  the  cotton-gin  have  taught  us  that 
the  perpetuation  of  slavery  is  a  necessity.  He 
insisted,  therefore,  upon  its  being  changed  from 
the  basis  upon  which  the  fathers  of  the  govern- 
ment left  it  to  the  basis  of  its  perpetuation  and 
nationalization. 

I  insist  that  this  is  the  difference  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself — that  Judge  Douglas 
is  helping  that  change  along.  I  insist  upon  this 
government  being  placed  where  our  fathers  orig- 
inally placed  it. 

I  remember  Judge  Douglas  once  said  that  he 
saw  the  evidences  on  the  statute-books  of  Con- 
gress of  a  policy  in  the  origin  of  government  to 
divide  slavery  and  freedom  by  a  geographical 


2SO  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  is 

line — that  he  saw  an  indisposition  to  maintain 
that  poHcy,  and  therefore  he  set  about  studying 
up  a  way  to  settle  the  institution  on  the  right 
basis — the  basis  which  he  thought  it  ought  to 
have  been  placed  upon  at  first ;  and  in  that  speech 
he  confesses  that  he  seeks  to  place  it,  not  upon 
the  basis  that  the  fathers  placed  it  upon,  but  upon 
one  gotten  up  on  ''original  principles."  When 
he  asks  me  why  we  cannot  get  along  with  it  in 
the  attitude  where  our  fathers  placed  it,  he  had 
better  clear  up  the  evidences  that  he  has  himself 
changed  it  from  that  basis ;  that  he  has  himself 
been  chiefly  instrumental  in  changing  the  policy 
of  the  fathers.  Any  one  who  will  read  his  speech 
of  the  22d  of  last  March  will  see  that  he  there 
makes  an  open  confession,  showing  that  he  set 
about  fixing  the  institution  upon  an  altogether 
different  set  of  principles.  I  think  I  have  fully 
answered  him  when  he  asks  me  why  we  cannot 
let  it  alone  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers  left 
it,  by  showing  that  he  has  himself  changed  the 
whole  policy  of  the  government  in  that  regard. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  in  regard  to  this  matter 
about  a  contract  that  was  made  between  Judge 
Trumbull  and  myself,  and  all  that  long  portion 
of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  on  this  subject,  I  wish 
simply  to  say  what  I  have  said  to  him  before, ' 
that  he  cannot  know  whether  it  is  true  or  not, 
and  I  do  know  that  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth 
in  it.  And  I  have  told  him  so  before.  I  don't 
want  any  harsh  language  indulged  in,  but  I  do 
not  know  how  to  deal  with  this  persistent  insist- 
ing on  a  story  that  I  know  to  be  utterly  without 
truth.  It  used  to  be  a  fashion  amongst  men  that 
when  a  charge  was  made,  some  sort  of  proof  was 
brought  forward  to  establish  it,  and  if  no  proof 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  251 

was  found  to  exist,  the  charge  was  dropped.  I 
don't  know  how  to  meet  this  kind  of  an  argu- 
ment. I  don't  want  to  have  a  fight  with  Judge 
Douglas,  and  I  have  no  way  of  making  an  argu- 
ment up  into  the  consistency  of  a  corn-cob  and 
stopping  his  mouth  with  it.  All  I  can  do  is, 
good-humoredly,  to  say  that  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  all  that  story  about  a  bargain  be- 
tween Judge  Trumbull  and  myself,  there  is  not  a 
word  of  truth  in  it.  I  can  only  ask  him  to  show 
some  sort  of  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  story. 
He  brings  forward  here  and  reads  from  what  he 
contends  is  a  speech  by  James  H.  Matheny, 
charging  such  a  bargain  between  Trumbull  and 
myself.  My  own  opinion  is  that  Matheny  did 
do  some  such  immoral  thing  as  to  tell  a  story 
that  he  knew  nothing  about.  I  believe  he  did.  I 
contradicted  it  instantly,  and  it  has  been  con- 
tradicted by  Judge  Trumbull,  while  nobody  has 
produced  any  proof,  because  there  is  none. 
Now,  whether  the  speech  which  the  judge  brings 
forward  here  is  really  the  one  Matheny  made, 
I  do  not  know,  and  I  hope  the  judge  will  pardon 
me  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  this  docu- 
ment, since  his  production  of  those  Springfield 
resolutions  at  Ottawa.  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell 
at  any  great  length  upon  this  matter.  I  can  say 
nothing  when  a  long  story  like  this  is  told,  ex- 
cept that  it  is  not  true,  and  demand  that  he  who 
insists  upon  it  shall  produce  some  proof.  That 
is  all  any  man  can  do,  and  I  leave  it  in  that  way, 
for  I  know  of  no  other  way  of  dealing  with  it. 
The  judge  has  gone  over  a  long  account  of  the 
Old  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  and  it  con- 
nects itself  with  this  charge  against  Trumbull 
and  myself.     He  says  that  they  agreed  upon  a 


252  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

compromise  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question  in 
1850;  that  in  a  national  Democratic  convention 
resolutions  were  passed  to  abide  by  that  com- 
promise as  a  finality  upon  the  slavery  question. 
He  also  says  that  the  Whig  party  in  national 
convention  agreed  to  abide  by  and  regard  as  a 
finality  the  compromise  of  1850.  I  understand 
the  judge  to  be  altogether  right  about  that;  I 
understand  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  coun- 
try as  stated  by  him  to  be  correct.  I  recollect 
that  I,  as  a  member  of  that  party,  acquiesced  in 
that  compromise.  I  recollect  in  the  presidential 
election  which  followed,  when  we  had  General 
Scott  up  for  the  presidency,  Judge  Douglas  was 
around  berating  us  Whigs  as  Abolitionists,  pre- 
cisely as  he  does  to-day — not  a  bit  of  difference. 
I  have  often  heard  him.  We  could  do  nothing 
when  the  Old  Whig  party  was  alive  that  was 
not  Abolitionism,  but  it  has  got  an  extremely 
good  name  since  it  has  passed  away. 

When  that  compromise  was  made,  it  did  not 
repeal  the  old  Missouri  Compromise.  It  left  a 
region  of  United  States  territory  half  as  large  as 
the  present  territory  of  the  United  States,  north 
of  the  line  of  36^  30',  in  which  slavery  was  pro- 
hibited by  act  of  Congress.  This  compromise 
did  not  repeal  that  one.  It  did  not  affect  or  pro- 
pose to  repeal  it.  But  at  last  it  became  Judge 
Douglas's  duty,  as  he  thought  (and  I  find  no 
fault  with  him),  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  territorial  government — first  of  one, 
then  of  two  Territories  north  of  that  line.  When 
he  did  so  it  ended  in  his  inserting  a  provision 
substantially  repealing  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise.   That  was  because  the  compromise  of  1850 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  253 

had  not  repealed  it.  And  now  I  ask  why  he 
could  not  have  left  that  compromise  alone?  We 
were  quiet  from  the  ag'itation  of  the  slavery- 
question.  We  were  making  no  fuss  about  it. 
All  had  acquiesced  in  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850.  We  never  had  been  seriously  disturbed 
by  any  Abolition  agitation  before  that  period. 
When  he  came  to  form  governments  for  the 
Territories  north  of  36°  30',  why  could  he  not 
have  let  that  matter  stand  as  it  was  standing? 
Was  it  necessary  to  the  organization  of  a  Terri- 
tory? Not  at  all.  Iowa  lay  north  of  the  line 
and  had  been  organized  as  a  Territory,  and  came 
into  the  Union  as  a  State  without  disturbing  that 
compromise.  There  was  no  sort  of  necessity  for 
destroying  it  to  organize  these  Territories.  But, 
gentlemen,  it  would  take  up  all  my  time  to  meet 
all  the  little  quibbling  arguments  of  Judge  Doug- 
las to  show  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was 
repealed  by  the  compromise  of  1850.  My  own 
opinion  is  that  a  careful  investigation  of  all  the 
arguments  to  sustain  the  position  that  that  com- 
promise was  virtually  repealed  by  the  compro- 
mise of  1850  would  show  that  they  are  the  mer- 
est fallacies.  I  have  the  report  that  Judge  Doug- 
las first  brought  into  Congress  at  the  time  of 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  which  in 
its  original  form  did  not  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  he  there  expressly  stated  that 
he  had  forborne  to  do  so  because  it  had  not  been 
done  by  the  compromise  of  1850.  I  close  this 
part  of  the  discussion  on  my  part  by  asking  him 
the  question  again,  ''Why,  when  we  had  peace 
under  the  Missouri  Compromise,  could  you  not 
have  let  it  alone?" 

In  complaining  of  what  I  said  in  my  speech  at 


254  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

Springfield,  in  which  he  says  I  accepted  my  nom- 
ination for  the  senatorship  (where,  by  the  way, 
he  is  at  fault,  for  if  he  will  examine  it,  he  will 
find  no  acceptance  in  it),  he  again  quotes  that 
portion  in  which  I  said  that  "a  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  Let  me  say  a  word 
in  regard  to  that  matter. 

He  tries  to  persuade  us  that  there  must  be  a 
variety  in  the  different  institutions  of  the  States 
of  the  Union ;  that  that  variety  necessarily  pro- 
ceeds from  the  variety  of  soil,  climate,  of  the 
face  of  the  country,  and  the  difference  in  the 
natural  features  of  the  States.  I  agree  to  all 
that.  Have  these  very  matters  ever  produced 
any  difficulty  amongst  us?  Not  at  all.  Have 
we  ever  had  any  quarrel  over  the  fact  that  they 
have  laws  in  Louisiana  designed  to  regulate  the 
commerce  that  springs  from  the  production  of 
sugar  ?  or  because  we  have  a  different  class  rela- 
tive to  the  production  of  flour  in  this  State? 
Have  they  produced  any  differences?  Not  at 
all.  They  are  the  very  cements  of  this  Union. 
They  don't  make  the  house  a  house  divided 
against  itself.  They  are  the  props  that  hold  up 
the  house  and  sustain  the  Union. 

But  has  it  been  so  with  this  element  of  slavery? 
Have  we  not  always  had  quarrels  and  difficulties 
over  it?  And  when  will  we  cease  to  have  quar- 
rels over  it?  Like  causes  produce  like  effects. 
It  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  we  have  gener- 
ally had  a  comparative  peace  upon  the  slavery 
question,  and  that  there  has  been  no  cause  for 
alarm  until  it  was  excited  by  the  effort  to  spread 
it  into  new  territory.  Whenever  it  has  been  lim- 
ited to  its  present  bounds,  and  there  has  been  no 
effort  to  spread  it,  there  has  been  peace.    All  the 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  255 

trouble  and  convulsion  has  proceeded  from  ef- 
forts to  spread  it  over  more  territory.  It  was 
thus  at  the  date  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
It  was  so  again  with  the  annexation  of  Texas ; 
so  with  the  territory  acquired  by  the  Mexican 
war ;  and  it  is  so  now.  Whenever  there  has  been 
an  effort  to  spread  it  there  has  been  agitation 
and  resistance.  Now,  I  appeal  to  this  audience 
(very  few  of  whom  are  my  political  friends),  as 
rational  men,  whether  we  have  reason  to  expect 
that  the  agitation  in  regard  to  this  subject  will 
cease  while  the  causes  that  tend  to  reproduce 
agitation  are  actively  at  work?  Will  not  the 
same  cause  that  produced  agitation  in  1820,  when 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  formed, — that 
which  produced  the  agitation  upon  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  and  at  other  times, — work  out  the 
same  results  always?  Do  you  think  that  the  na- 
ture of  man  will  be  changed— that  the  same 
causes  that  produced  agitation  at  one  time  will 
not  have  the  same  effect  at  another? 

This  has  been  the  result  so  far  as  my  observa- 
tion of  the  slavery  question  and  my  reading  in  his- 
tory extend.  What  right  have  we  then  to  hope 
that  the  trouble  will  cease,  that  the  agitation  will 
come  to  an  end ;  until  it  shall  either  be  placed 
back  where  it  originally  stood,  and  where  the 
fathers  originally  placed  it,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  until  it  shall  entirely  master  all  opposition? 
This  is  the  view  I  entertain,  and  this  is  the  rea- 
son why  I  entertained  it,  as  Judge  Douglas  has 
read  from  my  Springfield  speech. 

Now,  my  friends,  there  is  one  other  thing  that 
I  feel  under  some  sort  of  obligation  to  mention. 
Judge  Douglas  has  here  to-day — in  a  very 
rambling  way,   I  was  about   saying — spoken  of 


256  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

the  platforms  for  which  he  seeks  to  hold  me  re- 
sponsible. He  says,  "Why  can't  you  come  out 
and  make  an  open  avowal  of  principles  in  all 
places  alike?"  and  he  reads  from  an  advertise- 
ment that  he  says  was  used  to  notify  the  people 
of  a  speech  to  be  made  by  Judge  Trumbull  at 
Waterloo.  In  commenting  on  it  he  desires  to 
know  whether  we  cannot  speak  frankly  and  man- 
fully as  he  and  his  friends  do !  How,  I  ask,  do 
his  friends  speak  out  their  own  sentiments?  A 
convention  of  his  party  in  this  State  met  on  the 
2 1  St  of  April,  at  Springfield,  and  passed  a  set  of 
resolutions  which  they  proclaim  to  the  country 
as  their  platform.  This  does  constitute  their 
platform,  and  it  is  because  Judge  Douglas  claims 
it  is  his  platform — that  these  are  his  principles 
and  purposes — that  he  has  a  right  to  declare 
that  he  speaks  his  sentiments  "frankly  and  man- 
fully." On  the  9th  of  June,  Colonel  John  Dough- 
erty, Governor  Reynolds,  and  others,  calling 
themselves  National  Democrats,  met  in  Spring- 
field, and  adopted  a  set  of  resolutions  which  are 
as  easily  understood,  as  plain  and  as  definite  in 
stating  to  the  country  and  to  the  world  what 
they  believed  in  and  would  stand  upon,  as  Judge 
Douglas's  platform.  Now,  what  is  the  reason 
that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  v/illing  that  Colonel 
Dougherty  and  Governor  Reynolds  should  stand 
upon  their  own  written  and  printed  platform  as 
well  as  he  upon  his  ?  Why  must  he  look  farther 
than  their  platform  when  he  claims  himself  to 
stand  by  his  platform? 

Again,  in  reference  to  our  platform :  On  the 
1 6th  of  June  the  Republicans  had  their  conven- 
tion and  published  their  platform,  which  is  as 
clear  and  distinct  as  Judge  Douglas's.    In  it  they 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  257 

spoke  their  principles  as  plainly  and  as  definitely 
to  the  world.  What  is  the  reason  that  Judge 
Douglas  is  not  willing  that  I  should  stand  upon 
that  platform  ?  Why  must  he  go  around  hunting 
for  some  one  who  is  supporting  me,  or  has  sup- 
ported me  at  some  time  in  his  life,  and  who  has 
said  something  at  some  time  contrary  to  that 
platform?  Does  the  judge  regard  that  rule  as  a 
good  one?  If  it  turn  out  that  the  rule  is  a  good 
one  for  me, — that  I  am  responsible  for  any  and 
every  opinion  that  any  man  has  expressed  who  is 
my  friend, — then  it  is  a  good  rule  for  him.  I 
ask,  is  it  not  as  good  a  rule  for  him  as  it  is  for 
me?  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  a  good  rule  for 
either  of  us.    Do  you  think  differently,  judge? 

Mr.  Douglas :  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Lincoln :  Judge  Douglas  says  he  does  not 
think  differently.  I  am  glad  of  it.  Then  can  he 
tell  me  why  he  is  looking  up  resolutions  of  five 
or  six  years  ago,  and  insisting  that  they  were  my 
platform,  notwithstanding  my  protest  that  they 
are  not,  and  never  were,  my  platform,  and  my 
pointing  out  the  platform  of  the  State  conven- 
tion which  he  delights  to  say  nominated  me  for 
the  Senate  ?  I  cannot  see  what  he  means  by 
parading  these  resolutions,  if  it  is  not  to  hold  me 
responsible  for  them  in  some  way.  If  he  says  to 
me  here,  that  he  does  not  hold  the  rule  to  be 
good,  one  way  or  the  other,  I  do  not  comprehend 
how  he  could  answer  me  more  fully  if  he  an- 
swered me  at  greater  length.  I  will  therefore 
put  in  as  my  answer  to  the  resolutions  that  he 
has  hunted  up  against  me  what  I,  as  a  lawyer, 
would  call  a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declaration.  I 
understand  that  it  is  a  maxim  of  law,  that  a  poor 
plea  may  be  a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declaration.    I 


258  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

think  that  the  opinions  the  judge  brings  from 
those  who  support  me,  yet  differ  from  me,  are 
a  bad  declaration  against  me,  but  if  I  can  bring 
the  same  things  against  him,  I  am  putting  in  a 
good  plea  to  that  kind  of  declaration,  and  now  I 
propose  to  try  it. 

At  Freeport  Judge  Douglas  occupied  a  large 
part  of  his  time  in  producing  resolutions  and 
documents  of  various  sorts,  as  I  understood,  to 
make  me  somehow  responsible  for  them ;  and  I 
propose  now  doing  a  little  of  the  same  sort  of 
thing  for  him.  In  1850  a  very  clever  gentleman 
by  the  name  of  Thompson  Campbell,  a  personal 
friend  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  a  political 
friend  of  Judge  Douglas  and  an  opponent  of 
mine,  was  a  candidate  for  Congress  in  the 
Galena  district.  He  was  interrogated  as  to  his 
views  on  this  same  slavery  question.  I  have 
here  before  me  the  interrogatories,  and  Camp- 
bell's answers  to  them.     I  will  read  them : 

Interrogatories. 

1.  Will  you,  if  elected,  vote  for  and  cordially  support 
a  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States? 

2.  Will  you  vote  for  and  support  a  bill  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia? 

3.  Will  you  oppose  the  admission  of  any  slave  States 
which  may  be  formed  out  of  Texas  or  the  Territories? 

4.  Will  you  vote  for  and  advocate  the  repeal  of  the 
fugitive-slave  law  passed  at  the  recent  session  of 
Congress? 

5.  Will  you  advocate  and  vote  for  the  election  of  a 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who  shall  be 
willing  to  organize  the  committees  of  that  House  so  as 
to  give  the  free  States  their  just  influence  in  the  busi- 
ness of  legislation? 

6.  What  are  your  views,  not  only  as  to  the  constitu- 
tional  right  of   Congress   to   prohibit  the   slave-trade 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  259 

between  the  States,  but  also  as  to  the  expediency  of 
exercising  that  right  immediately? 

Campbell's  Reply. 

To  the  first  and  second  interrogatories,  I  answer 
unequivocally  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  third  interrogatory,  I  reply  that  I  am  op- 
posed to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into 
the  Union,  that  may  be  formed  out  of  Texan  or  any 
other  territory. 

To  the  fourth  and  fifth  interrogatories,  I  unhesitat- 
ingly answer  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  sixth  interrogatory,  I  reply  that  so  long  as  the 
slave  States  continue  to  treat  slaves  as  articles  of  com- 
merce, the  Constitution  confers  power  on  Congress  to 
pass  laws  regulating  that  peculiar  commerce,  and  that 
the  protection  of  human  rights  imperatively  demands 
the  interposition  of  every  constitutional  means  to  pre- 
vent this  most  inhuman  and  iniquitous  traffic. 

T.  Campbell. 

I  want  to  say  here  that  Thompson  Campbell 
was  elected  to  Congress  on  that  platform,  as  the 
Democratic  candidate  in  the  Galena  district, 
against  Martin  P.  Sweet. 

Judge  Douglas :  Give  me  the  date  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Lincoln :  The  time  Campbell  ran  was  in 
1850.  I  have  not  the  exact  date  here.  It  was 
some  time  in  1850  that  these  interrogatories  were 
put  and  the  answer  given.  Campbell  was  elected 
to  Congress,  and  served  out  his  term.  I  think 
a  second  election  came  up  before  he  served  out 
his  term,  and  he  was  not  reelected.  Whether  de- 
feated or  not  nominated,  I  do  not  know.  [Mr. 
Campbell  was  nominated  for  reelection  by  the 
Democratic  party,  by  acclamation.]  At  the  end 
of  his  term  his  very  good  friend,  Judge  Douglas, 
got  him  a  high  office  from  President  Pierce,  and 
sent  him  off  to  California.    Is  not  that  the  fact? 


26o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

Just  at  the  end  of  his  term  In  Congress  it  ap- 
pears that  our  mutual  friend  Judge  Douglas  got 
our  mutual  friend  Campbell  a  good  office,  and 
sent  him  to  California  upon  it.  And  not  only  so, 
but  on  the  27th  of  last  month,  when  Judge  Doug- 
las and  myself  spoke  at  Freeport  in  joint  dis- 
cussion, there  was  his  same  friend  Campbell, 
come  all  the  way  from  California,  to  help  the 
judge  beat  me;  and  there  was  poor  Martin  P. 
Sweet  standing  on  the  platform,  trying  to  help 
poor  me  to  be  elected.  That  is  true  of  one  of 
Judge  Douglas's  friends. 

So  again,  in  that  same  race  of  1850,  there  was 
a  congressional  convention  assembled  at  Joliet, 
and  it  nominated  R.  S.  Molony  for  Congress, 
and  unanimously  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  we  are  uncompromisingly  opposed  to 
the  extension  of  slavery;  and  while  we  would  not  make 
such  opposition  a  ground  of  interference  with  the 
interests  of  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  we  moder- 
ately but  firmly  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress 
to  oppose  its  extension  into  territory  now  free  by  all 
means  compatible  with  the  obligations  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  with  good  faith  to  our  sister  States;  that 
these  principles  were  recognized  by  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  which  received  the  sanction  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
who  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  great  oracle  and 
expounder  of  our  faith. 

Subsequently  the  same  interrogatories  were 
propounded  to  Dr.  Molony  which  had  been  ad- 
dressed to  Campbell,  as  above,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  sixth,  respecting  the  interstate  slave- 
trade,  to  which  Dr.  Molony,  the  Democratic 
nominee  for  Congress,  replied  as  follows : 

I  received  the  interrogatories  this  day,  and  as  you 
will  see  by  the  La  Salle  Democrat  and   Ottawa  Free 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  a6i 

Trader,  I  took  at  Peru  on  the  5th  and  at  Ottawa  on 
the  7th,  the  affirmative  side  of  interrogatories  ist  and 
2d;  and  in  relation  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave 
States  from  free  territory,  my  position  taken  at  these 
meetings,  as  correctly  reported  in  said  papers,  was  em- 
phatically and  distinctly  opposed  to  it.  In  relation  to 
the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  from  Texas, 
whether  I  shall  go  against  it  or  not  will  depend  upon 
the  opinion  that  I  may  hereafter  form  of  the  true  mean- 
ing and  nature  of  the  resolutions  of  annexation.  If 
by  said  resolutions  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the 
nation  is  pledged  to  admit  more  slave  States  from 
Texas  when  she  (Texas)  may  apply  for  admission  of 
such  State,  then  I  should,  if  in  Congress,  vote  for 
their  admission.  But  if  not  so  pledged  and  bound  by 
sacred  contract,  then  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  more 
slave  States  from  Texas  would  never  receive  my  vote. 

To  your  fourth  interrogatory  I  answer  most  deci- 
dedly in  the  affirmative,  and  for  reasons  set  forth  in  my 
reported  remarks  at  Ottawa  last  Monday. 

To  your  fifth  interrogatory  I  also  reply  in  the  af- 
firmative, most  cordially,  and  that  I  will  use  my  ut- 
most exertions  to  secure  the  nomination  and  election 
of  a  man  who  will  accomplish  the  objects  of  said  in- 
terrogatories. I  most  cordially  approve  of  the  resolu- 
tions adopted  at  the  union  meeting  held  at  Princeton 
on  the  27th  September  ult.     Yours,  etc. 

R.  S.  Molony. 


All  I  have  to  say  in  regard  to  Dr.  Molony  is 
that  he  was  the  regularly  nominated  Democratic 
candidate  for  Congress  in  his  district;  was 
elected  at  that  time ;  at  the  end  of  his  term  was 
appointed  to  a  land-ofifice  at  Danville.  (I  never 
heard  anything  of  Judge  Douglas's  instrumen- 
tality in  this.)  He  held  this  ofifice  a  considerable 
time,  and  when  we  were  at  Freeport  the  other 
day,  there  were  handbills  scattered  about  notify- 
ing the  public  that  after  our  debate  was  over  R. 
S.  Molony  would  make  a  Democratic  speech  in 
favor  of  Judge  Douglas.    That  is  all  I  know  of 


262 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS      [Sept.  15 


my  own  personal  knowledge.  It  is  added  here 
to  this  resolution  (and  truly,  I  believe)  that 
"among  those  whose  participated  in  the  Joliet 
convention,  and  who  supported  its  nominee,  with 
his  platform  as  laid  down  in  the  resolution  of 
the  convention,  and  in  his  reply  as  above  given, 
we  call  at  random  the  following  names,  all  of 
which  are  recognized  at  this  day  as  leading  Dem- 
ocrats :  Cook  County — E.  B.  Williams,  Charles 
McDonell,  Arno  Voss,  Thomas  Hoyne,  Isaac 
Cook," — I  reckon  we  ought  to  except  Cook, — 
''F.  C.  Shermxan.  Will— Joel  A.  Matteson,  S. 
W.  Bowen.  Kane — B.  F.  Hall,  G.  W.  Renwick, 
A.  M.  Herrington,  Elijah  Wilcox.  McHenry — 
W.  M.  Jackson,  Enos  W.  Smith,  Neil  Donnelly. 
LaSalle— John  Hise,  William  Reddick"— Will- 
iam Reddick — another  one  of  Judge  Douglas's 
friends  that  stood  on  the  stand  with  him  at  Ot- 
tawa at  the  time  the  judge  says  my  knees 
trembled  so  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away !  The 
names  are  all  here :  **DuPage — Nathan  Allen. 
DeKalb— Z.  B.  Mayo." 

Here  is  another  set  of  resolutions  which  I 
think  are  apposite  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

On  the  28th  of  February  of  the  same  year,  a 
Democratic  district  convention  was  held  at  Na- 
perville,  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  circuit 
judge.  Among  the  delegates  were  Bowen  and 
Kelly,  of  Will ;  Captain  Naper,  H.  H.  Cody,  Na- 
than Allen,  of  DuPage;  W.  M.  Jackson,  J.  M. 
Strode,  P.  W.  Piatt,  and  Enos  W.  Smith,  of  Mc- 
Henry; J.  Horsman  and  others,  of  Winnebago. 
Colonel  Strode  presided  over  the  convention. 
The  following  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted — the  first  on  motion  of  P.  W.  Piatt,  the 
second  on  motion  of  William  M.  Jackson: 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  263 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  is  in  favor  of  the 
Wilmot  proviso,  both  in  principle  and  practice,  and 
that  we  know  of  no  good  reason  why  any  person 
should  oppose  the  largest  latitude  in  free  soil,  free 
territory,  and  free  speech. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention,  the 
time  has  arrived  when  all  men  should  be  free,  whites 
as  well  as  others. 

Judge  Douglas :  What  is  the  date  of  those 
resolutions. 

Mr.  Lincoln :  I  understand  it  was  in  1850, 
but  I  do  not  know  it.  I  do  not  state  a  thing  and 
say  I  know  it  when  I  do  not.  But  I  have  the 
highest  belief  that  this  is  so.  I  know  of  no  way 
to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  there  is  an  error 
in  it.  I  mean  to  put  a  case  no  stronger  than  the 
truth  will  allow.  But  what  I  was  going  to  com- 
ment upon  is  an  extract  from  a  newspaper  in  De- 
Kalb  County,  and  it  strikes  me  as  being  rather 
singular,  I  confess,  under  the  circumstances. 
There  is  a  Judge  Mayo  in  that  county,  who  is  a 
candidate  for  the  legislature,  for  the  purpose,  if 
he  secures  his  election,  of  helping  to  reelect 
Judge  Douglas.  He  is  the  editor  of  a  newspaper 
[Dekalb  County  Sentinel],  and  in  that  paper  I 
find  the  extract  I  am  going  to  read.  It  is  part 
of  an  editorial  article  in  which  he  was  election- 
eering as  fiercely  as  he  could  for  Judge  Douglas 
and  against  me.  It  was  a  curious  thing,  I  think, 
to  be  in  such  a  paper.  I  will  agree  to  that,  and 
the  judge  may  make  the  most  of  it: 

Our  education  has  been  such  that  we  have  ever  been 
rather  in  favor  of  this  equality  of  the  blacks;  that  is, 
that  they  should  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  the  whites 
where  they  reside.  We  are  aware  that  this  is  not  a 
very  popular  doctrine.  We  have  had  many  a  confab 
with    some    who    are    now  strong    "Republicans,"    we 


264 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 


taking  the  broad  ground  of  equality  and  they  the  op- 
posite ground. 

We  were  brought  up  in  a  State  where  blacks  were 
voters,  and  we  do  not  know  of  any  inconvenience 
resulting  from  it,  though  perhaps  it  v/ould  not  work 
so  well  where  the  blacks  are  more  numerous.  We 
have  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  whites  to  guard 
against  such  an  evil,  if  it  is  one.  Our  opinion  is  that 
it  would  be  best  for  all  concerned  to  have  the  colored 
population  in  a  State  by  themselves  [in  this  I  agree 
with  him]  ;  but  if  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  we  say  by  all  means  they  should  have  the  right 
to  have  their  senators  and  their  representatives  in 
Congress,  and  to  vote  for  President.  With  us  "worth 
makes  the  man,  and  want  of  it  the  fellow."  We  have 
seen  many  a  "nigger"  that  we  thought  more  of  than 
some  white  men. 

That  is  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends.  Now 
I  do  not  want  to  leave  myself  in  an  attitude 
where  I  can  be  misrepresented,  so  I  will  say  I 
do  not  think  the  judge  is  responsible  for  this 
article ;  but  he  is  quite  as  responsible  for  it  as  I 
would  be  if  one  of  my  friends  had  said  it.  I 
think  that  is  fair  enough. 

I  have  here  also  a  set  of  resolutions  passed  by 
a  Democratic  State  convention  in  Judge  Doug- 
las's own  good  old  State  of  Vermont,  and  that, 
I  think,  ought  to  be  good  for  him  too. 

Resolved,  That  liberty  is  a  right  inherent  and  inalien- 
able in  man,  and  that  herein  all  men  are  equal. 

Resolved,  That  we  claim  no  authority  in  the  Federal 
Government  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  several  States. 
But  we  do  claim  for  it  constitutional  power  perpetually 
to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  territory 
now  free,  and  abolish  it  wherever,  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Congress,  it  exists. 

Resolved,  That  this  power  ought  immediately  to  be 
exercised  in  prohibiting  the  introduction  and  existence 
of  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  California,  in  abolishing 
slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 


I858I  AT  JONESBORO  265 

•on  the  high  seas,  and  wherever  else,  under  the  Consti- 
tution, it  can  be  reached. 

Resolved,  That  no  more  slave  States  should  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Federal  Union. 

Resolved,  That  the  government  ought  to  return  to  its 
ancient  policy,  not  to  extend,  nationalize,  or  encour- 
age, but  to  limit,  localize,  and  discourage  slavery. 

At  Freeport  I  answered  several  interrogato- 
ries that  had  been  propounded  to  me  by  Judge 
Douglas  at  the  Ottawa  meeting.  The  judge  has 
yet  not  seen  fit  to  find  any  fault  with  the  position 
that  I  took  in  regard  to  those  seven  interrogato- 
ries, which  were  certainly  broad  enough,  in  all 
conscience,  to  cover  the  entire  ground.  In  my 
answers,  which  have  been  printed,  and  all  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  seeing,  I  take  the  ground 
that  those  who  elect  m.e  must  expect  that  I  will 
do  nothing  which  will  not  be  in  accordance  with 
those  answers.  I  have  some  right  to  assert  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  no  fault  to  find  with  them. 
But  he  chooses  to  still  try  to  thrust  me  upon  dif- 
ferent^round  without  paying  any  attention  to 
my  aiSvvers,  the  obtaining  of  which  from  me 
cost  him  so  much  trouble  and  concern.  At  the 
same  time,  I  propounded  four  interrogatories  to 
him,  claiming  it  as  "a  right  that  he  should  answer 
as  many  interrogatories  for  me  as  I  did  for  him, 
and  I  would  reserve  myself  for  a  future  instal- 
ment when  I  got  them  ready.  The  judge,  in  an- 
swering me  upon  that  occasion,  put  in  what  I 
suppose  he  intends  as  answers  to  all  four  of  my 
interrogatories.  The  first  one  of  these  interroga- 
tories I  have  before  me,  and  it  is  in  these  words : 

Question  i.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means 
entirely  unobjectionable  in  all  other  respects,  adopt  a 
State  constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union 


266 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 


under  it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of 
inhabitants  according  to  the  English  bill, — some 
ninety-three  thousand, — will  you  vote  to  admit  them? 

As  I  read  the  judge's  answer  in  the  newspaper,, 
and  as  I  remember  it  ai;  pronounced  at  the  time, 
he  does  not  give  any  answer  which  is  equivalent 
to  yes  or  no — I  will  or  I  won't.  He  answers  at 
very  considerable  length,  rather  quarreling  with 
me  for  asking  the  question,  and  insisting  that 
Judge  Trumbull  had  done  something  that  I  ought 
to  say  something  about ;  and  finally  getting  out 
such  statements  as  induce  me  to  infer  that  he 
means  to  be  understood  he  will,  in  that  supposed 
case,  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas.  I  only 
bring  this  forward  now  for  the  purpose  of  saying 
that,  if  he  chooses  to  put  a  different  construc- 
tion upon  his  answer,  he  may  do  it.  But  if  he 
does  not,  I  shall  from  this  time  forward  assume 
that  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas 
in  disregard  of  the  English  bill.  He  has  the 
right  to  remove  any  misunderstanding  I  may 
have.  I  only  mention  it  now  that  I  ma,^  here- 
after assume  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of 
his  answer,  if  he  does  not  now  choose  to  correct 
me. 

The  second  interrogatory  that  I  propounded 
to  him  was  this : 

Question  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Ter- 
ritory, in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its 
limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution? 

To  this  Judge  Douglas  answered  that  they  can 
lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory  prior 
to  the  formation  of  a  constitution.  He  goes  on 
to  tell  us  how  it  can  be  done.    As  I  understand 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  267 

him,  he  holds  that  it  can  be  done  by  the  territo- 
rial legislature  refusing  to  make  any  enactments 
for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  the  Territory, 
and  especially  by  adopting  unfriendly  legislation 
to  it.  For  the  sake  of  clearness,  I  state  it  again : 
that  they  can  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory 
— first,  by  withholding  what  he  assumes  to  be 
an  indispensable  assistance  to  it  in  the  way  of 
legislation ;  and,  second,  by  unfriendly  legisla- 
tion. If  I  rightly  understand  him,  I  wish  to  ask 
your  attention  for  a  while  to  his  position. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  decided  that  any  congressional 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  uncon- 
stitutional— they  have  reached  this  proposition  as 
a  conclusion  from  their  former  proposition,  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly 
recognizes  property  in  slaves ;  and  from  that 
other  constitutional  provision,  that  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  property  without  due  proc- 
ess of  law.  Hence  they  reach  the  conclusion 
that  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ex- 
pressly recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  pro- 
hibits any  person  from  being  deprived  of  prop- 
erty without  due  process  of  law,  to  pass  an  act 
of  Congress  by  which  a  man  who  owned  a  slave 
on  one  side  of  a  line  would  be  deprived  of  him 
if  he  took  him  on  the  other  side  is  depriving  him 
of  that  property  without  due  process  of  law. 
That  I  understand  to  be  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court.  I  understand  also  that  Judge 
Douglas  adheres  most  firmly  to  that  decision; 
and  the  dif^culty  is,  how  is  it  possible  for  any 
power  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory  un- 
less in  violation  of  that  decision?  That  is  the 
difficulty. 


268  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1856, 
Judge  Trumbull,  in  a  speech,  substantially,  if  not 
directly,  put  the  same  interrogatory  to  Judge 
Douglas,  as  to  whether  the  people  of  a  Territory 
had  the  lawful  power  to  exclude  slavery  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  constitution?  Judge  Douglas 
then  answered  at  considerable  length,  and  his 
answer  will  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe, 
under  the  date  of  June  9,  1856.  The  judge  said 
that  whether  the  people  could  exclude  slavery 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution  or  not 
was  a  question  to  be  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  He  put  that  proposition,  as  will  be  seen 
by  the  Congressional  Globe,  in  a  variety  of 
forms,  all  running  to  the  same  thing  in  substance 
— that  it  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court. 
I  maintain  that  when  he  says,  after  the  Supreme 
Court  has  decided  the  question,  that  the  people 
may  yet  exclude  slavery  by  any  means  whatever, 
he  does  virtually  say  that  it  is  not  a  question  for 
the  Supreme  Court.  He  shifts  his  ground.  I 
appeal  to  you  whether  he  did  not  say  it  was  a 
question  for  the  Supreme  Court?  Has  not  the 
Supreme  Court  decided  that  question?  When 
he  now  says  that  the  people  may  exclude  slavery, 
does  he  not  make  it  a  question  for  the  people? 
Does  he  not  virtually  shift  his  ground  and  say 
that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  court,  but  for 
the  people?  This  is  a  very  simple  proposition — 
a  very  plain  and  naked  one.  It  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  deciding  it.  In  a  variety 
of  ways  he  said  that  it  was  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  did  not  stop  then  to  tell  us 
that,  whatever  the  Supreme  Court  decides,  the 
people  can  by  withholding  necessary  ''police  reg- 
ulations" keep  slavery  out.     He  did  not  make 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  269 

any  such  answer.  I  submit  to  you  now,  whether 
the  new  state  of  the  case  has  not  induced  the 
judge  to  sheer  away  from  his  original  ground. 
Would  not  this  be  the  impression  of  every  fair- 
minded  man? 

I  hold  that  the  proposition  that  slavery  cannot 
enter  a  new  country  without  police  regulations 
is  historically  false.  It  is  not  true  at  all.  I  hold 
that  the  history  of  this  country  shows  that  the 
institution  of  slavery  was  originally  planted  upon 
this  continent  without  these  ''police  regulations" 
which  the  judge  now  thinks  necessary  for  the 
actual  establishment  of  it.  Not  only  so,  but  is 
there  not  another  fact — how  came  this  Dred 
Scott  decision  to  be  made?  It  was  made  upon 
the  case  of  a  negro  being  taken  and  actually  held 
in  slavery  in  Minnesota  Territory,  claiming  his 
freedom  because  the  act  of  Congress  prohibited 
his  being  so  held  there.  Will  the  judge  pretend 
that  Dred  Scott  was  not  held  there  without  police 
regulations  ?  There  is  at  least  one  matter  of  rec- 
ord as  to  his  having  been  held  in  slavery  in  the 
Territory,  not  only  without  police  regulations, 
but  in  the  teeth  of  congressional  legislation  sup- 
posed to  be  valid  at  the  time.  This  shows  that 
there  is  vigor  enough  in  slavery  to  plant  itself  in 
a  new  country  even  against  unfriendly  legisla- 
tion. It  takes  not  only  law  but  the  enforcement 
of  law  to  keep  it  out.  That  is  the  history  of  this 
country  upon  the  subject. 

I  wish  to  ask  one  other  question.  It  being  un- 
derstood that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  guarantees  property  in  slaves  in  the  Ter- 
ritories, if  there  is  any  infringement  of  the  right 
of  that  property,  would  not  the  United  States 
courts,  organized  for  the  government  of  the  Ter- 


270  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

ritory,  apply  such  remedy  as  might  be  necessary 
in  that  case?  It  is  a  maxim  held  by  the  courts, 
that  there  is  no  wrong  without  its  remedy;  and 
the  courts  have  a  remedy  for  whatever  is  ac- 
knowledged and  treated  as  a  wrong. 

Again :  I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you  were 
elected  members  of  the  legislature,  what  would 
be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do  before 
entering  upon  your  duties?  Swear  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Suppose 
you  believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  guarantees  to 
your  neighbor  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  that 
Territory, — that  they  are  his  property, — how  can 
you  clear  your  oaths  unless  you  give  him  such 
legislation  as  is  necessary  to  enable  him  to  enjoy 
that  property?  What  do  you  understand  by 
supporting  the  Constitution  of  a  State,  or  of  the 
United  States?  Is  it  not  to  give  such  constitu- 
tional helps  to  the  rights  established  by  that 
Constitution  as  may  be  practically  needed  ?  Can 
you,  if  you  swear  to  support  the  Constitution, 
and  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes  a 
right,  clear  your  oath,  without  giving  it  support  ? 
Do  you  support  the  Constitution  if,  knowing  or 
believing  there  is  a  right  established  under  it 
which  needs  specific  legislation,  you  withhold 
that  legislation?  Do  you  not  violate  and  disre- 
gard your  oath?  I  can  conceive  of  nothing 
plainer  in  the  world.  There  can  be  nothing  in 
the  words  "support  the  Constitution,"  if  you  may 
run  counter  to  it  by  refusing  support  to  any  right 
established  under  the  Constitution.  And  what 
I  say  here  will  hold  with  still  more  force  against 
the  judge's  doctrine  of  ''unfriendly  legislation." 
How   could  you,   having   sworn  to  support  the 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  271 

Constitution,  and  believing  that  it  guaranteed  the 
right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories,  assist  in 
legislation  intended  to  defeat  that  right?  That 
would  be  violating  your  own  view  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Not  only  so,  but  if  you  were  to  do  so, 
how  long  would  it  take  the  courts  to  hold  your 
votes  unconstitutional  and  void?    Not  a  moment. 

Lastly  I  would  ask — Is  not  Congress  itself  un- 
der obligation  to  give  legislative  support  to  any 
right  that  is  established  under  the  United  States 
Constitution?  I  repeat  the  question — Is  not 
Congress  itself  bound  to  give  legislative  support 
to  any  right  that  is  established  in  the  United 
States  Constitution?  A  member  of  Congress 
swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  if  he  sees  a  right  established  by  that 
Constitution  which  needs  specific  legislative  pro- 
tection, can  he  clear  his  oath  without  giving  that 
protection?  Let  me  ask  you  why  many  of  us 
who  are  opposed  to  slavery  upon  principle  give 
our  acquiescence  to  a  fugitive-slave  law?  Why 
do  we  hold  ourselves  under  obligations  to  pass 
such  a  law,  and  abide  by  it  when  it  is  passed? 
Because  the  Constitution  makes  provision  that 
the  owners  of  slaves  shall  have  the  right  to 
reclaim  them.  It  gives  the  right  to  reclaim 
slaves,  and  that  right  is,  as  Judge  Douglas  says, 
a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legislation  that  will 
enforce  it. 

The  mere  declaration,  ''No  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  conse- 
quence of  any  law  or  regulation  therein  be  dis- 
charged from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be 
delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due,"  is  powerless  with- 


272  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

out  specific  legislation  to  enforce  it.  Now,  on 
what  ground  would  a  member  of  Congress  who 
is  opposed  to  slavery  in  the  abstract  vote  for  a 
fugitive  law,  as  I  would  deem  it  my  duty  to  do  ? 
Because  there  is  a  constitutional  right  which 
needs  legislation  to  enforce  it.  And  although  it 
is  distasteful  to  me,  I  have  sworn  to  support  the 
Constitution,  and  having  so  sworn,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive that  I  do  support  it  if  I  withhold  from  that 
right  any  necessary  legislation  to  make  it  practi- 
cal. And  if  that  is  true  in  regard  to  a  fugitive- 
slave  law,  is  the  right  to  have  fugitive  slaves 
reclaimed  any  better  fixed  in  the  Constitution 
than  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories? 
For  this  decision  is  a  just  exposition  of  the  Con- 
stitution, as  Judge  Douglas  thinks.  Is  the  one 
right  any  better  than  the  other?  Is  there  any 
man  who,  while  a  member  of  Congress,  would 
give  support  to  the  one  any  more  than  the  other  ? 
If  I  wished  to  refuse  to  give  legislative  support 
to  slave  property  in  the  Territories,  if  a  member 
of  Congress,  I  could  not  do  it,  holding  the  view 
that  the  Constitution  establishes  that  right.  If 
I  did  it  at  all,  it  would  be  because  I  deny  that 
this  decision  properly  construes  the  Constitution. 
But  if  I  acknowledge,  with  Judge  Douglas,  that 
this  decision  properly  construes  the  Constitution, 
I  cannot  conceive  that  I  would  be  less  than  a 
perjured  man  if  I  should  refuse  in  Congress  to 
give  such  protection  to  that  property  as  in  its 
nature  it  needed. 

At  the  end  of  what  I  have  said  here  I  propose 
to  give  the  judge  my  fifth  interrogatory,  which 
he  may  take  and  answer  at  his  leisure.  My  fifth 
interrogatory  is  this  : 

If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States 


i858]  AT  J0NES30R0  273 

Territory  should  need  and  demand  congressional 
legislation  for  the  protection  of  their  slave  prop- 
erty in  such  Territory,  would  you  as  a  member 
of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such  legislation? 

Judge  Douglas  :  Will  you  repeat  that  ?  I  want 
to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Lincoln :  If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a 
United  States  Territory  should  need  and  demand 
congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of 
their  slave  property  in  such  Territory,  would 
you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or 
against  such  legislation? 

I  am  aware  that  in  some  of  the  speeches  Judge 
Douglas  has  made,  he  has  spoken  as  if  he  did 
not  know  or  think  that  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided  that  a  territorial  legislature  cannot  ex- 
clude slavery.  Precisely  what  the  judge  would 
say  upon  the  subject — whether  he  would  say 
definitely  that  he  does  not  understand  they  have 
so  decided,  or  whether  he  would  say  he  does 
understand  that  the  court  have  so  decided,  I  do 
not  know ;  but  I  know  that  in  his  speech  at 
Springfield  he  spoke  of  it  as  a  thing  they  had  not 
decided  yet ;  and  in  his  answer  to  me  at  Freeport, 
he  spoke  of  it  again,  so  far  as  I  can  comprehend 
it,  as  a  thing  that  had  not  yet  been  decided.  Now 
I  hold  that  if  the  judge  does  entertain  that  view, 
I  think  that  he  is  not  mistaken  in  so  far  as  it  can 
be  said  that  the  court  has  not  decided  anything 
save  the  mere  question  of  jurisdiction.  I  know 
the  legal  arguments  that  can  be  made — that  after 
a  court  has  decided  that  it  cannot  take  jurisdic- 
tion in  a  case,  it  then  has  decided  all  that  is  be- 
fore it,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  A  plausible  argu- 
ment can  be  made  in  favor  of  that  proposition, 
but  I  know  that  Judge  Douglas  has  said  in  one 


274  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

of  his  speeches  that  the  court  went  forward,  Hke 
honest  men  as  they  were,  and  decided  all  the 
points  in  the  case.  If  any  points  are  really  extra- 
judicially decided  because  not  necessarily  before 
them,  then  this  one  as  to  the  power  of  the  terri- 
torial legislature  to  exclude  slavery  is  one  of 
them,  as  also  the  one  that  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise was  null  and  void.  They  are  both  extra- 
judicial, or  neither  is,  according  as  the  court  held 
that  they  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case  between 
the  parties,  because  of  want  of  capacity  of  one 
party  to  maintain  a  suit  in  that  court.  I  want,  if 
I  have  sufficient  time,  to  show  that  the  court  did 
pass  its  opinion,  but  that  is  the  only  thing  actually 
done  in  the  case.  If  they  did  not  decide,  they 
showed  what  they  were  ready  to  decide  when- 
ever the  matter  was  before  them,  \yhat  is  that 
opinion?  After  having  argued  that  Congress 
had  no  power  to  pass  a  law  excluding  slavery 
from  a  United  States  Territory,  they  then  used 
language  to  this  effect :  That  inasmuch  as  Con- 
gress itself  could  not  exercise  such  a  power,  it 
followed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  it  could  not 
authorize  a  territorial  government  to  exercise  it, 
for  the  territorial  legislature  can  do  no  more  than 
Congress  could  do.  Thus  it  expressed  its  opin- 
ion emphatically  against  the  power  of  a  terri- 
torial legislature  to  exclude  slavery,  leaving  us 
in  just  as  little  doubt  on  that  point  as  upon  any 
other  point  they  really  decided. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  my  time  is  nearly  out.  I 
find  a  report  of  a  speech  made  by  Judge  Douglas 
at  Joliet,  since  we  last  met  at  Freeport, — pub- 
lished, I  believe,  in  the  Missouri  Republican, — 
on  the  gth  of  this  month,  in  which  Judge  Doug- 
las says : 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  275 

You  know  at  Ottawa  I  read  this  platform,  and  asked 
him  if  he  concurred  in  each  and  all  of  the  principles 
set  forth  in  it.  He  would  not  answer  these  questions. 
At  last  I  said  frankly,  "I  wish  you  to  answer  them, 
because  when  I  get  them  up  here  where  the  color  of 
your  principles  is  a  little  darker  than  in  Egypt,  I  in- 
tend to  trot  you  down  to  Jonesboro."  The  very  notice 
that  I  was  going  to  take  him  down  into  Egypt  made 
him  tremble  in  the  knees  so  that  he  had  to  be  carried 
from  the  platform.  He  laid  up  seven  days,  and  in  the 
mean  time  held  a  consultation  with  his  political  physi- 
cians; they  had  Lovejoy  and  Farnsworth  and  all  the 
leaders  of  the  Abolition  party.  They  consulted  it  all 
over,  and  at  last  Lincoln  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  would  answer;  so  he  came  to  Freeport  last  Friday. 

Now  that  statement  altogether  furnishes  a 
subject  for  philosophical  contemplation.  I  have 
been  treating  it  in  that  way,  and  I  have  really 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  I  can  explain  it  in  no 
other  way  than  by  believing  the  judge  is  crazy. 
If  he  was  in  his  right  mind,  I  cannot  conceive 
how  he  would  have  risked  disgusting  the  four  or 
five  thousand  of  his  own  friends  who  stood  there 
and  knew,  as  to  my  having  been  carried  from  the 
platform,  that  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it. 

Judge  Douglas:  Didn't  they  carry  you  off? 

Mr.  Lincoln :  There ;  that  question  illustrates 
the  character  of  this  man  Douglas,  exactly.  He 
smiles  now  and  says,  "Didn't  they  carry  you 
ofif?"  But  he  said  then,  "He  had  to  be  carried 
off" ;  and  he  said  it  to  convince  the  country  that 
he  had  so  completely  broken  me  down  by  his 
speech  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away.  Now  he 
seeks  to  dodge  it,  and  asks,  "Didn't  they  carry 
you  off?"  Yes,  they  did.  But,  Judge  Douglas, 
v/hy  didn't  you  tell  the  truth?  I  would  like  to 
know  why  you  didn't  tell  the  truth  about  it. 
And  then  again,  "He  laid  up  seven  days."     He 


276 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 


puts  this  in  print  for  the  people  of  the  country 
to  read  as  a  serious  document.  I  think  if  he  had 
been  in  his  sober  senses  he  would  not  have  risked 
that  barefacedness  in  the  presence  of  thousands 
of  his  own  friends,  who  knew  that  I  made 
speeches  within  six  of  the  seven  days  at  Henry, 
Marshall  County;  Augusta,  Hancock  County; 
and  Macomb,  McDonough  County,  including  all 
the  necessary  travel  to  meet  him  again  at  Free- 
port  at  the  end  of  the  six  days.  Now,  I  say, 
there  is  no  charitable  way  to  look  at  that  state- 
ment, except  to  conclude  that  he  is  actually 
crazy.  There  is  another  thing  in  that  statement 
that  alarmed  me  very  greatly  as  he  states  it — 
that  he  was  going  to  ''trot  me  down  to  Egypt." 
Thereby  he  would  have  you  to  infer  that  I  would 
not  come  to  Egypt  unless  he  forced  me — that  I 
could  not  be  got  here,  unless  he,  giant-like,  had 
hauled  me  down  here.  That  statement  he  makes, 
too,  in  the  teeth  of  the  knowledge  that  I  made 
the  stipulation  to  come  down  here,  and  that  he 
himself  had  been  very  reluctant  to  enter  into  the 
stipulation.  More  than  all  this.  Judge  Douglas, 
when  he  made  that  statement,  must  have  been 
crazy,  and  wholly  out  of  his  sober  senses,  or  else 
he  would  have  known  that,  when  he  got  me  down 
here,  that  promise — that  windy  promise — of  his 
powers  to  annihilate  me  wouldn't  amount  to 
anything.  Now,  how  little  do  I  look  like  being 
carried  away  trembling?  Let  the  judge  go  on, 
and  after  he  is  done  with  his  half  hour,  I  want 
you  all,  if  I  can't  go  home  myself,  to  let  me  stay 
and  rot  here;  and  if  anything  happens  to  the 
judge,  if  I  cannot  carry  him  to  the  hotel  and  put 
him  to  bed,  let  me  stay  here  and  rot.  I  say, 
then,  there  is  something  extraordinary  in  this 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  277 

statement.  I  ask  you  if  you  know  any  other 
living  man  who  would  make  such  a  statement? 
I  will  ask  my  friend  Casey,  over  there,  if  he 
would  do  such  a  thing?  Would  he  send  that 
out  and  have  his  men  take  it  as  the  truth?  Did 
the  judge  talk  of  trotting  me  down  to  Egypt  to 
scare  me  to  death?  Why,  I  know  this  people 
better  than  he  does.  I  was  raised  just  a  little 
east  of  here.  I  am  a  part  of  this  people.  But 
the  judge  was  raised  further  north,  and  perhaps 
he  has  some  horrid  idea  of  what  this  people 
might  be  induced  to  do.  But  really  I  have  talked 
about  this  matter  perhaps  longer  than  I  ought, 
for  it  is  no  great  thing,  and  yet  the  smallest  are 
often  the  most  difficult  things  to  deal  with.  The 
judge  has  set  about  seriously  trying  to  make  the 
impression  that  when  we  meet  at  different  places 
I  am  literally  in  his  clutches — that  I  am  a  poor, 
helpless,  decrepit  mouse,  and  that  I  can  do  noth- 
ing at  all.  This  is  one  of  the  ways  he  has  taken 
to  create  that  impression.  I  don't  know  any 
other  way  to  meet  it,  except  this.  I  don't  want 
to  quarrel  with  him, — to  call  him  a  liar, — but 
when  I  come  square  up  to  him  I  don't  know  what 
else  to  call  him,  if  I  must  tell  the  truth  out.  I 
want  to  be  at  peace,  and  reserve  all  my  fighting 
powers  for  necessary  occasions.  My  time,  now, 
is  very  nearly  out,  and  I  give  up  the  trifle  that  is 
left  to  the  judge  to  let  him  set  my  knees  trembling 
again — if  he  can. 


Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder. 

My  friends,  while  I  am  very  grateful  to  you  for  the 
enthusiasm  which  you  show  for  me,  I  will  say  in  all 
candor,  that  your  quietness  will  be  much  more  agree- 


278  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

able  than  your  applause,  inasmuch  as  you  deprive  me 
of  some  part  of  my  time  whenever  you  cheer. 

I  will  commence  where  Mr.  Lincoln  left  of¥,  and 
make  a  remark  upon  this  serious  complaint  of  his 
about  my  speech  at  Joliet.  I  did  say  there  in  a  play- 
ful manner  that  when  I  put  these  questions  to  Mr. 
Lincoln  at  Ottawa,  he  failed  to  answer,  and  that  he 
trembled,  and  had  to  be  carried  off  the  stand,  and  re- 
quired seven  days  to  get  up  his  reply.  That  he  did 
not  walk  off  from  that  stand  he  will  not  deny.  That 
when  the  crowd  went  away  from  the  stand  with  me,  a 
few  persons  carried  him  home  on  their  shoulders  and 
laid  him  down,  he  will  admit.  I  wish  to  say  to  you 
that  whenever  I  degrade  my  friends  and  myself  by 
allowing  them  to  carry  me  on  their  backs  along 
through  the  public  streets,  when  I  am  able  to  walk,  I 
am  willing  to  be  deemed  crazy.  I  did  not  say  whether 
I  beat  him  or  he  beat  me  in  the  argument.  It  is  true 
I  put  these  questions  to  him,  and  I  put  them  not  as 
mere  idle  questions,  but  showed  that  I  based  them 
upon  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party,  as 
declared  by  their  conventions  in  that  portion  of  the 
State  which  he  depends  upon  to  elect  him,  and  desired 
to  know  whether  he  indorsed  that  creed.  He  would  not 
answer.  When  I  reminded  him  that  I  intended  bring- 
ing him  into  Egypt  and  renewing  my  questions  if  he 
refused  to  answer,  he  then  consulted,  and  did  get  up 
his  answers  one  week  after — answers  which  I  may  refer 
to  in  a  few  minutes,  and  show  you  how  equivocal  they 
are.  My  object  was  to  make  him  avow  whether  or  not 
he  stood  by  the  platform  of  his  party;  the  resolutions 
I  then  read,  and  upon  which  I  based  my  questions, 
had  been  adopted  by  his  party  in  the  Galena  congres- 
sional district,  and  the  Chicago  and  Bloomington 
congressional  districts,  composing  a  large  majority  of 
the  counties  in  this  State  that  give  Republican  or 
Abolition  majorities. 

Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  and  will  not  deny  that  the  doc- 
trines laid  down  in  these  resolutions  were  in  substance 
put  forth  in  Lovejoy's  resolutions,  which  were  voted 
for  by  a  majority  of  his  party,  some  of  them,  if  not 
all,  receiving  the  support  of  every  man  of  his  party. 
Hence  I  laid  a  foundation  for  my  questions  to  him 
before  I  asked  him  whether  that  was  or  was  not  the 
platform  of  his  party.     He  says  that  he  answered  my 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  279 

questions.  One  of  them  was  whether  he  would  vote 
to  admit  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union.  The 
creed  of  the  Republican  party,  as  set  forth  in  the 
resolutions  of  their  various  conventions,  was  that  they 
would  under  no  circumstances  vote  to  admit  another 
slave  State.  It  was  put  forth  in  the  Lovejoy  resolu- 
tions in  the  legislature;  it  was  put  forth  and  passed  in 
a  majority  of  all  the  counties  of  this  State  which  give 
Abolition  or  Republican  majorities,  or  elect  members 
to  the  legislature  of  that  school  of  politics.  I  had  a 
right  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  for  or  against 
the  admission  of  another  slave  State  in  the  event  the 
people  wanted  it.  He  first  answered  that  he  was  not 
pledged  on  the  subject,  and  then  said: 

In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged 
to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union, 
I  state  to  you  very  frankly  that  I  would  be  exceedingly 
sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to  pass 
on  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know 
that  there  would  never  be  another  slave  State  admitted 
into  the  Union ;  but  I  must  add  that  if  slavery  shall  be 
kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  territorial  existence 
of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people,  having 
a  fair  chance  and  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  a 
constitution,  do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  adopt  a 
slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of 
the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we 
own  the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union. 

Now  analyze  that  answer.  In  the  first  place  he  says 
he  would  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  be  put  in  a  position 
where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  question  of  the 
admission  of  a  slave  State.  Why  is  he  a  candidate  for 
the  Senate  if  he  would  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  that 
position?  I  trust  the  people  of  Illinois  will  not  put 
him  in  a  position  which  he  would  be  so  sorry  to 
occupy.  The  next  position  he  takes  is  that  he  would 
be  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be  another 
slave  State,  yet,  in  certain  contingencies,  he  might 
have  to  vote  for  one.  What  is  that  contingency?  "If 
Congress  keeps  slavery  out  by  law  while  it  is  a  Terri- 
tory, and  then  the  people  should  have  a  fair  chance  and 
should  adopt  slavery,  uninfluenced  by  the  presence  of 
the  institution,"  he  supposed  he  would  have  to  admit 
the  State.     Suppose  Congress  should  not  keep  slavery 


28o  DEBATE  PVITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

out  during  their  territorial  existence,  then  how  would 
he  vote  when  the  people  applied  for  admission  into  the 
Union   with   a   slave   constitution?     That   he   does   not 
answer,   and  that  is  the  condition  of  every  Territory 
we  have  now  got.     Slavery  is  not  kept  out  of  Kansas 
by  act  of  Congress,  and  when  I  put  the  question  to  Mr. 
Lincoln,  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  with 
or  without  slavery,  as  her  people  may  desire,  he  will 
not   answer,   and   you   have   not   got   an   answer   from 
him.     In  Nebraska  slavery  is  not  prohibited  by  act  of 
Congress,  but  the  people  are  allowed,   under  the   Ne- 
braska bill,  to  do  as  they  please  on  the  subject;  and 
when   I    ask  him   whether   he   will   vote  to   admit   Ne- 
braska with  a   slave  constitution  if  her  people  desire 
it,  he  will  not  answer.     So  with  New  Mexico,  Wash- 
ington Territory,  Arizona,  and  the  four  new  States  to 
be  admitted  from  Texas.     You  cannot  get  an  answer 
from  him  to  these  questions.     His  answer  only  applies 
to    a    given    case,    to    a    condition — things    which    he 
knows  do  not  exist  in  any  one  Territory  in  the  Union. 
He   tries   to    give   you   to    understand   that    he   would 
allow    the   people    to    do    as    they    please,    and    yet    he 
dodges    the    question    as    to    every    Territory    in    the 
Union.     I  now  ask  why  cannot  Mr.  Lincoln  answer  to 
each  of  those  Territories?     He  has  not  done  it,  and  he 
will  not  do  it.     The  Abolitionists  up  North  understand 
that  this  answer  is  made  with  a  view  of  not  commit- 
ting himself  on  any  one  Territory  now  in   existence. 
It  is  so  understood  there,  and  you  cannot  expect  an 
answer  from   him   on  a  case  that   applies  to  any  one 
Territory,  or  applies  to  the  new  States  which  by  com- 
pact we  are  pledged  to  admit  out  of  Texas,  when  they 
have  the  requisite  population  and  desire  admission.     I 
submit  to  you  whether  he  has  made  a  frank  answer,  so 
that  you  can  tell  how  he  would  vote  in  any  one  of  these 
cases.     "He  would  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  the  position." 
Why  would  he  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  this  position  if 
his  duty  required  him  to  give  the  vote?     If  the  people 
of  a  Territory  ought  to  be  permitted  to  come  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  they 
please,   why  not  give  the  vote  admitting  them  cheer- 
fully?    If  in   his   opinion  they   ought  not  to   come  in 
with  slavery,  even  if  they  wanted  to,  why  not  say  that 
he  would  cheerfully  vote  against  their  admission?     His 
intimation  is  that  conscience   would  not  let  him  vote 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  281 

"No,"   and  he   would  be   sorry  to   do   that   which  his 
conscience  would  compel  him  to  do  as  an  honest  man. 

In  regard  to  the  contract  or  bargain  between  Trum- 
bull, the  Abolitionists,  and  him,  which  he  denies,  I 
wish  to  say  that  the  charge  can  be  proved  by  notorious 
historical  facts.  Trumbull,  Lovejoy,  Giddings,  Fred 
Douglass,  Hale,  and  Banks  were  traveling  the  State  at 
that  time  making  speeches  on  the  same  side  and  in  the 
same  cause  with  him.  He  contents  himself  with  the 
same  denial  that  no  such  thing  occurred.  Does  he 
deny  that  he,  and  Trumbull,  and  Breese,  and  Giddings, 
and  Chase,  and  Fred  Douglass,  and  Lovejoy,  and  all 
those  Abolitionists  and  deserters  from  the  Democratic 
party,  did  make  speeches  all  over  this  State  in  the 
same  common  cause?  Does  he  deny  that  Jim  Matheny 
was  then,  and  is  now,  his  confidential  friend,  and  does 
he  deny  that  Matheny  made  the  charge  of  the  bargain 
and  fraud  in  his  own  language,  as  I  have  read  it  from 
his  printed  speech?  Matheny  spoke  of  his  own  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  that  bargain  existing  between 
Lincoln,  Trumbull,  and  the  Abolitionists.  He  still 
remains  Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  and  is  now  a 
candidate  for  Congress,  and  is  canvassing  the  Spring- 
field district  for  Lincoln.  I  assert  that  I  can  prove  the 
charge  to  be  true  in  detail  if  I  can  ever  get  it  where  I 
can  summon  and  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses. 
I  have  the  statement  of  another  man  to  the  same  efifect 
as  that  made  by  Matheny,  which  I  am  not  permitted 
to  use  yet,  but  Jim  Matheny  is  a  good  witness  on  that 
point,  and  the  history  of  the  country  is  conclusive 
upon  it.  That  Lincoln  up  to  that  time  had  been  a 
Whig,  and  then  undertook  to  Abolitionize  the  Whigs 
and  bring  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is  beyond 
denial;  that  Trumbull  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Demo- 
crat, and  deserted,  and  undertook  to  Abolitionize  the 
Democracy,  and  take  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is 
beyond  denial;  that  they  are  both  now  active,  leading, 
distinguished  members  of  this  Abolition  Republican 
party,  in  full  communion,  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be 
questioned  or  denied. 

But  Lincoln  is  not  willing  to  be  responsible  for  the 
creed  of  his  party.  He  complains  because  I  hold  him 
responsible,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  issue  he  at- 
tempts to  show  that  individuals  in  the  Democratic 
party,    many    years    ago,    expressed    Abolition    senti- 


282  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  ig 

ments.  It  is  true  that  Tom  Campbell,  when  a  candi- 
date for  Congress  in  1850,  published  the  letter  which 
Lincoln  read.  When  I  asked  Lincoln  for  the  date  of 
that  letter  he  could  not  give  it.  The  date  of  the  letter 
has  been  suppressed  by  other  speakers  who  have  used 
it,  though  I  take  it  for  granted  that  Lincoln  did  not 
know  the  date.  If  he  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine, 
he  will  find  that  the  letter  was  published  only  two  days 
before  the  election,  and  was  never  seen  until  after  it, 
except  in  one  county.  Tom  Campbell  would  have  been 
beat  to  death  by  the  Democratic  party  if  that  letter 
had  been  made  public  in  his  district.  As  to  Molony, 
it  is  true  that  he  uttered  sentiments  of  the  kind  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  the  best  Democrats  would  not 
vote  for  him  for  that  reason.  I  returned  from  Wash- 
ington after  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures 
in  1850,  and  when  I  found  Molony  running  under  John 
Wentworth's  tutelage,  and  on  his  platform,  I  de- 
nounced him,  and  declared  that  he  was  no  Democrat. 
In  my  speech  at  Chicago,  just  before  the  election  that 
year,  I  went  before  the  infuriated  people  of  that  city 
and  vindicated  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  Re- 
member, the  city  council  had  passed  resolutions  nullify- 
ing acts  of  Congress  and  instructing  the  police  to 
withhold  their  assistance  from  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  and  as  I  was  the  only  man  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
who  was  responsible  for  the  passage  of  the  compro- 
mise measures,  I  went  before  the  crowd,  justified  each 
and  every  one  of  those  measures,  and  let  it  be  said  to 
the  eternal  honor  of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  when 
they  were  convinced  by  my  exposition  that  those 
measures  were  right,  and  that  they  had  done  wrong  in 
opposing  them,  they  repealed  their  nullifying  resolu- 
tions, and  declared  that  they  would  acquiesce  in  and 
support  the  laws  of  the  land.  These  facts  are  well 
known,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  can  only  get  up  individual 
instances,  dating  back  to  1849-50,  which  are  con- 
tradicted by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Democratic  creed. 
But  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  responsi- 
ble for  the  Black  Republican  doctrine  of  no  more  slave 
States.  Farnsworth  is  the  candidate  of  his  party  to- 
day in  the  Chicago  district,  and  he  made  a  speech  in 
the  last  Congress  in  which  he  called  upon  God  to 
palsy  his  right  arm  if  he  ever  voted  for  the  admission 
of  another  slave  State,  whether  the  people  wanted  it 


1858]  AT  JONESBORO  283 

or  not.  Lovejoy  is  making  speeches  all  over  the 
State  for  Lincoln  now,  and  taking  ground  against  any 
more  slave  States.  Washburne,  the  Black  Republican 
candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena  district,  is  mak- 
ing speeches  in  favor  of  this  same  Abolition  platform 
declaring  no  more  slave  States.  Why  are  men  run- 
ning for  Congress  in  the  northern  districts,  and  taking 
that  Abolition  platform  for  their  guide,  when  Mr. 
Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  to  it  down  here  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  center  of  the  State,  and  objects  to 
it  so  as  to  get  votes  here?  Let  me  tell  Mr.  Lincoln 
that  his  party  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  hold 
to  that  Abolition  platform,  and  that  if  they  do  not  in 
the  south  and  in  the  center,  they  present  the  extraor- 
dinary spectacle  of  a  "house  divided  against  itself," 
and  hence  "cannot  stand."  I  now  bring  down  upon 
him  the  vengeance  of  his  own  Scripture  quotation, 
and  give  it  a  more  appropriate  application  than  he  did, 
when  I  say  to  him  that  his  party.  Abolition  in  one  end 
of  the  State  and  opposed  to  it  in  the  other,  is  a  house 
divided  against  itself,  and  cannot  stand,  and  ought  not 
to  stand,  for  it  attempts  to  cheat  the  American  people 
out  of  their  votes  by  disguising  its  sentiments. 

Mr.  Lincoln  attempts  to  cover  up  and  get  over  his 
Abolitionism  by  telling  you  that  he  was  raised  a  little 
east  of  you,  beyond  the  Wabash  in  Indiana,  and  he 
thinks  that  makes  a  mighty  sound  and  good  man  of 
him  on  all  these  questions.  I  do  not  know  that  the 
place  where  a  man  is  born  or  raised  has  much  to  do 
with  his  political  principles.  The  worst  Abolitionists 
I  have  ever  known  in  Illinois  have  been  men  who  have 
sold  their  slaves  in  Alabama  and  Kentucky,  and  have 
come  here  and  turned  Abolitionists  while  spending  the 
money  got  for  the  negroes  they  sold,  and  I  do  not 
know  that  an  Abolitionist  from  Indiana  or  Kentucky 
ought  to  have  any  more  credit  because  he  was  born 
and  raised  among  slave-holders.  I  do  not  know  that 
a  native  of  Kentucky  is  more  excusable  because  raised 
among  slaves;  his  father  and  mother  having  owned 
slaves,  he  comes  to  Illinois,  turns  Abolitionist,  and 
slanders  the  graves  of  his  father  and  mother,  and 
breathes  curses  upon  the  institutions  under  which  he 
was  born,  and  his  father  and  mother  were  bred.  True, 
I  was  not  born  out  West  here.  I  was  born  away  down 
in  Yankee  land;  I  was  born  in  a  valley  in  Vermont, 


284  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  15 

with  the  high  mountains  around  me.  I  love  the  old 
green  mountains  and  valleys  of  Vermont,  v^here  I  was 
born,  and  where  I  played  in  my  childhood.  I  went 
up  to  visit  them  some  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  for  the 
first  time  for  twenty  odd  years.  When  I  got  there 
they  treated  me  very  kindly.  They  invited  me  to  the 
commencement  of  their  college,  placed  me  on  the  seats 
with  their  distinguished  guests,  and  conferred  upon 
me  the  degree  of  LL.  D.  in  Latin  (doctor  of  laws), 
the  same  as  they  did  Old  Hickory,  at  Cambridge, 
many  years  ago,  and  I  give  you  my  word  and  honor 
I  understood  just  as  much  of  the  Latin  as  he  did. 
When  they  got  through  conferring  the  honorary  de- 
gree, they  called  upon  me  for  a  speech,  and  I  got  up 
with  my  heart  full  and  swelling  with  gratitude  for  their 
kindness,  and  I  said  to  them,  "My  friends,  Vermont 
is  the  most  glorious  spot  on  the  face  of  this  globe  for 
a  man  to  be  born  in,  provided  he  emigrates  when  he  is 
very  young." 

I  emigrated  when  I  was  very  young.  I  came  out 
here  when  I  was  a  boy,  and  found  my  mind  liberalized, 
and  my  opinions  enlarged  when  I  got  on  these  broad 
prairies,  with  only  the  heavens  to  bound  my  vision,  in- 
stead of  having  them  circumscribed  by  the  little  narrow 
ridges  that  surrounded  the  valley  where  I  was  born. 
But  I  discard  all  flings  at  the  land  where  a  man  was 
born.  I  wish  to  be  judged  by  my  principles,  by  those 
great  public  measures  and  constitutional  principles  upon 
which  the  peace,  the  happiness,  and  the  perpetuity  of 
this  republic  now  rest. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  framed  another  question,  propounded 
it  to  me,  and  desired  my  answer.  As  I  have  said  before, 
I  did  not  put  a  question  to  him  that  I  did  not  first  lay  a 
foundation  for  by  showing  that  it  was  a  part  of  the 
platform  of  the  party  whose  votes  he  is  now  seeking, 
adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  counties  where  he  now 
hopes  to  get  a  majority,  and  supported  by  the  candidates 
of  his  party  now  running  in  those  counties.  But  I  will 
answer  his  question.  It  is  as  follows :  "If  the  slave- 
holding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory  should 
need  and  demand  congressional  legislation  for  the  pro- 
tection of  their  slave  property  in  such  Territory,  would 
you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such 
legislation?"  I  answer  him  that  it  is  a  fundamental 
article   in   the   Democratic   creed  that   there   should  be 


i858]  AT  JONESBORO  285 

non-interference  and  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories.  Mr.  Lincoln  could 
have  found  an  answer  to  his  question  in  the  Cincinnati 
platform,  if  he  had  desired  it.  The  Democratic  party 
have  always  stood  by  that  great  principle  of  non-inter- 
ference and  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery 
in  the  States  or  Territories  alike,  and  I  stand  on  that 
platform  now. 

Now  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Lincoln  did  not  define  his  own  position  in  his  own 
question.  How  does  he  stand  on  that  question?  He 
put  the  question  to  me  at  Freeport  whether  or  not  I 
would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union  before  she 
had  93,420  inhabitants.  I  answered  him  at  once  that 
it  having  been  decided  that  Kansas  had  now  population 
enough  for  a  slave  State,  she  had  population  enough  for 
a  free  State. 

I  answered  the  question  unequivocally,  and  then  I 
asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  for  or  against  the 
admission  of  Kansas  before  she  had  93,420  inhabitants, 
and  he  would  not  answer  me.  To-day  he  has  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  his  opinion,  my  answer  on 
that  question  was  not  quite  plain  enough,  and  yet  he 
has  not  answered  it  himself.  He  now  puts  a  question 
in  relation  to  congressional  interference  in  the  Terri- 
tories to  me.  I  answer  him  direct,  and  yet  he  has  not 
answered  the  question  himself.  I  ask  you  whether  a 
man  has  any  right,  in  common  decency^  to  put  ques- 
tions, in  these  public  discussions,  to  his  opponent,  which 
he  will  not  answer  himself  when  they  are  pressed  home 
to  him.  I  have  asked  him  three  times,  whether  he 
would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  whenever  the  people  ap- 
plied with  a  constitution  of  their  own  making  and  their 
own  adoption,  under  circumstances  that  were  fair,  just, 
and  unexceptionable,  but  I  cannot  get  an  answer  from 
him.  Nor  will  he  answer  the  question  which  he  put  to 
me,  and  which  I  have  just  answered,  in  relation  to 
congressional  interference  in  the  Territories,  by  making 
a  slave  code  there. 

It  is  true  that  he  goes  on  to  answer  the  question  by 
arguing  that  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
it  is  the  duty  of  a  man  to  vote  for  a  slave  code  in  the 
Territories.  He  says  that  it  is  his  duty,  under  the 
decision  that  the  court  has  made,  and  if  he  believes  in 
that  decision  he  would  be  a  perjured  man  if  he  did  not 


286  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

give  the  vote.     I  want  to  know  v/hether  he  is  not  bound 
to  a  decision  which  is  contrary  to  his  opinions  just  as 
much  as  to  one  in  accordance  with  his  opinions.     If  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  tribunal  created  by 
the    Constitution    to    decide   the   question,    is    final    and 
binding,  is  he  not  bound  by  it  just  as  strongly  as  if  he 
was  for  it  instead  of  against  it  originally?     Is  every  man 
in    this    land   allowed   to   resist    decisions    he   does   not 
like,   and   only   support  those   that   meet  his   approval  ? 
What  are  important  courts  worth  unless  their  decisions 
are  binding  on  all  good  citizens?     It  is  the  fundamental 
principle   of  the   judiciary  that   its   decisions   are   final. 
It  is  created  for  that  purpose,  so  that  when  you  cannot 
agree  among  yourselves  on  a  disputed  point  you  appeal 
to  the  judicial  tribunal,  which  steps  in  and  decides  for 
you,  and  that  decision  is  then  binding  on  every  good 
citizen.     It  is  the  law  of  the  land   just  as  much  with 
Mr.  Lincoln  against  it  as  for  it.     And  yet  he  says  if  that 
decision  is  binding  he  is  a  perjured  man  if  he  does  not 
vote   for  the  slave  code  in  the  different  Territories  of 
this  Union.     Well,  if  you  [turning  to  Mr.  Lincoln]  are 
not  going  to  resist  the  decision,  if  you  obey  it,  and  do 
not   intend   to   array   m^ob   law   against   the   constituted 
authorities,  then  according  to  your  own  statement,  you 
will  be  a  perjured  man  if  you  do  not  vote  to  establish 
slavery  in  these  Territories.     My  doctrine  is,  that  even 
taking  Mr.  Lincoln's  view  that  the  decision  recognizes 
the  right  of  a  man  to  carry  his  slaves  into  the  Terri- 
tories of  the  United  States,  if  he  pleases,  yet  after  he 
gets  there  he  needs  affirmative  law  to  make  that  right  of 
any  value.     The  same  doctrine  not  only  applies  to  slave 
property,  but  all  other  kinds  of  property.     Chief  Justice 
Taney  places  it  upon  the  ground  that  slave  property  is 
on  an  equal  footing  with  other  property.     Suppose  one 
of  your  merchants  should  move  to  Kansas  and  open  a 
liquor-store ;  he  has  a  right  to  take  groceries  and  liquors 
there,  but  the  mode  of  selling  them,  and  the  circum- 
stances   under    which    they    shall   be    sold,    and   all    the 
remedies,  must  be  prescribed  by  local  legislation,  and  if 
that  is  unfriendly  it  will  drive  him  out  just  as  effectually 
as   if  there   was   a   constitutional  provision  against  the 
sale  of  liquor.     So  the  absence   of  local   legislation   to 
encourage   and   support    slave   property   in   a   Territory 
excludes  it  practically  just  as  effectually  as  if  there  was 
a  positive  constitutional  provision  against  it.     Hence  I 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  287 

assert  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  you  cannot 
maintain  slavery  a  day  in  a  Territory  where  there  is  an 
unwilHng  people  and  unfriendly  legislation.  If  the  peo- 
ple are  opposed  to  it,  our  right  is  a  barren,  worthless, 
useless  right ;  and  if  they  are  for  it,  they  will  support 
and  encourage  it.  We  come  right  back,  therefore,  to 
the  practical  question,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want 
slavery  they  will  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not  want  it  you 
cannot  force  it  on  them.  And  this  is  the  practical 
question,  the  great  principle,  upon  which  our  institutions 
rest.  I  am  willing  to  take  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  as  it  was  pronounced  by  that  august  tribunal, 
without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  I  would  have  de- 
cided that  way  or  not.  I  have  had  many  a  decision 
made  against  me  on  questions  of  law  which  I  did  not 
like,  but  I  was  bound  by  them  just  as  much  as  if  I  had 
had  a  hand  in  making  them,  and  approved  them.  Did 
you  ever  see  a  lawyer  or  a  client  lose  his  case  that  he 
approved  the  decision  of  the  court?  They  always  think 
the  decision  unjust  when  it  is  given  against  them.  In 
a  government  of  laws  like  ours  we  must  sustain  the 
Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  maintain  the 
rights  of  the  States  as  they  are  guaranteed  under  the 
Constitution,  and  then  we  will  have  peace  and  har- 
mony between  the  different  States  and  sections  of  this 
glorious  Union. 

Fourth  Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston. 

September  18,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  will  be  very  dififi- 
cult  for  an  audience  so  large  as  this  to  hear  dis- 
tinctly what  a  speaker  says,  and  consequently  it 
is  important  that  as  profound  silence  be  pre- 
served as  possible. 

While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly 
gentleman  called  upon  me  to  know  whether  I 
was  really  in  favor  of  producing;  a  perfect  equal- 
ity between  the  negroes  and  white  people.  .While 


288 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 


I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  occasion  to 
say  much  on  that  subject,  yet  as  the  question 
was  asked  me  I  thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps 
five  minutes  in  saying  something  in  regard  to  it. 
I  will  say  then  that  I  am  not,  or  ever  have  been, 
in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social 
and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races 
— that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of 
making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qual- 
ifying them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with 
white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this 
that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
white  and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  for- 
ever forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on 
terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And  in- 
asmuch as  they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  re- 
main together  there  must  be  the  position  of  su- 
perior and  inferior,  and  I  as  much  as  any  other 
man  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  position 
assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this  oc- 
casion that  I  do  not  perceive  that  because  the 
white  man  is  to  have  the  superior  position  the 
negro  should  be  denied  everything.  I  do  not 
understand  that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro 
woman  for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her 
for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just 
let  her  alone.  I  am  now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and 
I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black  woman  for 
either  a  slave  or  a  wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite 
possible  for  us  to  get  along  without  making  either 
slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this 
that  I  have  never  seen,  to  my  knowledge,  a  man, 
woman,  or  child  who  was  in  favor  of  producing 
a  perfect  equality,  social  and  political,  between 
negroes  and  white  men.  I  recollect  of  but  one 
distinguished  instance  that   I  ever  heard   of  sa 


i858]  -  AT  CHARLESTON  289 

frequently  as  to  be  entirely  satisfied  of  its  cor- 
rectness, and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's 
old  friend  Colonel  Richard  M.  Johnson.  I  will 
also  add  to  the  remarks  I  have  made  (for  I  am 
not  going  to  enter  at  large  upon  this  subject), 
that  I  have  never  had  the  least  apprehension  that 
I  or  my  friends  would  marry  negroes  if  there 
was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it ;  but  as  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  seem  to  be  in  great  ap- 
prehension that  they  might,  if  there  were  no  law 
to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn 
pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last  stand  by  the 
law  of  this  State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of 
white  people  with  negroes.  I  will  add  one  fur- 
ther word,  which  is  this :  that  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  there  is  any  place  where  an  altera- 
tion of  the  social  and  political  relations  of  the 
negro  and  the  white  man  can  be  made  except 
in  the  State  legislature — not  in  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States ;  and  as  I  do  not  really  appre- 
hend the  approach  of  any  such  thing  myself,  and 
as  Judge  Douglas  seems  to  be  in  constant  hor- 
ror that  some  such  danger  is  rapidly  approach- 
ing, I  propose,  as  the  best  means  to  prevent  itj 
that  the  judge  be  kept  at  home  and  placed  in  the 
State  legislature  to  fight  the  measure.  I  do  not 
propose  dwelling  longer  at  this  time  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

When  Judge  Trumbull,  our  other  senator  in 
Congress,  returned  to  Illinois  in  the  month  of 
August,  he  made  a  speech  at  Chicago,  in  which 
he  made  what  may  be  called  a  charge  against 
Judge  Douglas,  which  I  understand  proved  to  be 
very  offensive  to  him.  The  judge  was  at  that 
time  out  upon  one  of  his  speaking  tours  through 
the  country,  and  when  the  news  of  it  reached 


290  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  18 

him,  as  I  am  informed,  he  denounced  Judge 
Trumbull  in  rather  harsh  terms  for  having  said 
what  he  did  in  regard  to  that  matter.  I  was 
traveling  at  that  time,  and  speaking  at  the  same 
places  with  Judge  Douglas  on  subsequent  days, 
and  when  I  heard  of  what  Judge  Trumbull  had 
said  of  Douglas,  and  what  Douglas  had  said  back 
again,  I  felt  that  I  was  in  a  position  where  I  could 
not  remain  entirely  silent  in  regard  to  the  mat- 
ter. Consequently,  upon  two  or  three  occasions 
I  alluded  to  it,  and  alluded  to  it  in  no  other  wise 
than  to  say  that  in  regard  to  the  charge  brought 
by  Trumbull  against  Douglas,  I  personally  knew 
nothing,  and  sought  to  say  nothing  about  it — that 
I  did  personally  know  Judge  Trumbull — that  I 
believed  him  to  be  a  man  of  veracity — that  I  be- 
heved  him  to  be  a  man  of  capacity  sufficient  to 
know  very  well  whether  an  assertion  he  was 
making,  as  a  conclusion  drawn  from  a  set  of 
facts,  was  true  or  false ;  and  as  a  conclusion  of 
my  own  from  that,  I  stated  it  as  my  belief,  if 
Trumbull  should  ever  be  called  upon,  he  would 
prove  everything  he  had  said.  I  said  this  upon 
two  or  three  occasions.  Upon  a  subsequent  oc- 
casion. Judge  Trumbull  spoke  again  before  an 
audience  at  Alton,  and  upon  that  occasion  not 
only  repeated  his  charge  against  Douglas,  but 
arrayed  the  evidence  he  relied  upon  to  substanti- 
ate it.  This  speech  was  published  at  length,  and 
subsequently  at  Jacksonville  Judge  Douglas  al- 
luded to  the  matter.  In  the  course  of  his  speech, 
and  near  the  close  of  it,  he  stated  in  regard  to 
myself  what  I  will  now  read :  ''Judge  Douglas 
proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should  not  hereafter 
occupy  his  time  in  refuting  such  charges  made 
by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  291 

the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should 
hold  him  (Lincoln)  responsible  for  the  slan- 
ders." I  have  done  simply  what  I  have  told  you, 
to  subject  me  to  this  invitation  to  notice  the 
charge.  I  now  wish  to  say  that  it  had  not  orig- 
inally been  my  purpose  to  discuss  that  matter  at 
all.  But  inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  be  the  wish  of 
Judge  Douglas  to  hold  me  responsible  for  it, 
then  for  once  in  my  life  I  will  play  General  Jack- 
son, and  to  the  just  extent  I  take  the  responsi- 
bility. 

I  wish  to  say  at  the  beginning  that  I  will  hand 
to  the  reporters  the  portion  of  Judge  Trumbull's 
Alton  speech  which  was  devoted  to  this  matter, 
and  also  that  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech 
made  at  Jacksonville  in  answer  to  it.  I  shall 
thereby  furnish  the  readers  of  this  debate  with 
the  complete  discussion  between  Trumbull  and 
Douglas.  I  cannot  now  read  them,  for  the  rea- 
son that  it  would  take  half  of  my  first  hour  to  do 
so.  I  can  only  make  some  comments  upon  them. 
Trumbull's  charge  is  in  the  following  words : 
"Now,  the  charge  is,  that  there  was  a  plot  en- 
tered into  to  have  a  constitution  formed  for  Kan- 
sas, and  put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people 
an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  it,  and  that  Mr. 
Douglas  was  in  the  plot."  I  will  state,  without 
quoting  further,  for  all  will  have  an  opportunity 
of  reading  it  hereafter,  that  Judge  Trumbull 
brings  forward  what  he  regards  as  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  substantiate  this  charge. 

It  will  be  perceived  Judge  Trumbull  shows 
that  Senator  Bigler,  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate, 
had  declared  there  had  been  a  conference  among 
the  senators,  in  which  conference  it  was  deter- 
mined to  have  an  Enabling  Act  passed  for  the 


292  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  under; 
and  in  this  conference  it  was  agreed  among  them 
that  it  was  best  not  to  have  a  provision  for  sub- 
mitting the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
after  it  should  be  formed.  He  then  brings  for- 
ward evidence  to  show,  and  showing,  as  he 
deemed,  that  Judge  Douglas  reported  the  bill 
back  to  the  Senate  vv^ith  that  clause  stricken  out. 
He  then  shows  that  there  was  a  new  clause  in- 
serted into  the  bill,  which  would  in  its  nature  pre- 
vent a  reference  of  the  constitution  back,  for  a 
vote  of  the  people — if,  indeed,  upon  a  mere 
silence  in  the  law,  it  could  be  assumed  that  they 
had  the  right  to  vote  upon  it.  These  are  the 
general  statements  that  he  has  made. 

I  propose  to  examine  the  points  in  Judge 
Douglas's  speech,  in  which  he  attempts  to  answer 
that  speech  of  Judge  Trumbull's.  When  you 
come  to  examine  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  you 
will  find  that  the  first  point  he  makes  is :  ''Sup- 
pose it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  change 
in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it  out — is  that  a 
proof  of  a  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  them 
against  their  will  ?"  His  striking  out  such  a  pro- 
vision, if  there  was  such  a  one  in  the  bill,  he 
argues,  does  not  establish  the  proof  that  it  was 
stricken  out  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  the 
people  of  that  right.  I  would  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  that  would  be  a  most  manifest  reason 
for  it.  It  is  true,  as  Judge  Douglas  states,  that 
many  territorial  bills  have  passed  without  hav- 
ing such  a  provision  in  them.  I  believe  it  is  true, 
though  I  am  not  certain,  that  in  some  instances 
constitutions  framed  under  such  bills  have  been 
submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  with  the  law 
silent  upon  the  subject;  but  it  does  not  appear 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  293 

that  they  once  had  their  enabhng  acts  framed 
with  an  express  provision  for  submitting^  the 
constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the  people, 
and  then  that  it  was  stricken  out  when  Congress 
did  not  mean  to  alter  the  effect  of  the  law.  That 
there  have  been  bills  which  never  had  the  pro- 
vision in,  I  do  not  question ;  but  when  was  that 
provision  taken  out  of  one  that  it  was  in?  More 
especially  does  this  evidence  tend  to  prove  the 
proposition  that  Trumbull  advanced,  when  we 
remember  that  the  provision  was  stricken  out  of 
the  bill  almost  simultaneously  with  the  time  that 
Bigler  says  there  was  a  conference  among  cer- 
tain senators,  and  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  a 
bill  should  be  passed  leaving  that  out.  Judge 
Douglas,  in  answering  Trumbull,  omits  to  attend 
to  the  testimony  of  Bigler,  that  there  was  a  meet- 
ing in  which  it  was  agreed  they  should  so  frame 
the  bill  that  there  should  be  no  submission  of 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  The 
judge  does  not  notice  this  part  of  it.  If  you  take 
this  as  one  piece  of  evidence,  and  then  ascertain 
that  simultaneously  Judge  Douglas  struck  out  a 
provision  that  did  require  it  to  be  submitted,  and 
put  the  two  together,  I  think  it  will  make  a  pretty 
fair  show  of  proof  that  Judge  Douglas  did, 
as  Trumbull  says,  enter  into  a  plot  to  put  in 
force  a  constitution  for  Kansas  without  giv- 
ing the  people  any  opportunity  of  voting 
upon  it. 

But  I  must  hurry  on.  The  next  proposition 
that  Judge  Douglas  puts  is  this :  ''But  upon  ex- 
amination it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never 
did  contain  a  clause  requiring  the  constitution  to 
be  submitted."  This  is  a  mere  question  of  fact, 
and  can  be  determined  by  evidence.    I  only  want 


294  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

to  ask  this  question — why  did  not  Judge  Douglas 
say  that  these  words  were  not  stricken  out  of  the 
Toombs  bill,  or  this  bill  from  which  it  is  alleged 
the  provision  was  stricken  out — a  bill  which  goes 
by  the  name  of  Toombs,  because  he  originally 
brought  it  forward?  I  ask  why,  if  the  judge 
wanted  to  make  a  direct  issue  with  Trumbull,  did 
he  not  take  the  exact  proposition  Trumbull  m.ade 
in  his  speech,  and  say  it  was  not  stricken  out? 
Trumbull  has  given  the  exact  words  that  he  says 
were  in  the  Toombs  bill,  and  he  alleges  that  when 
the  bill  came  back,  they  were  stricken  out.  Judge 
Douglas  does  not  say  that  the  words  which 
Trumbull  says  were  stricken  out,  were  not 
stricken  out,  but  he  says  there  was  no  provision 
in  the  Toombs  bill  to  submit  the  constitution  to 
a  vote  of  the  people.  We  see  at  once  that  he  is 
merely  making  an  issue  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
words.  He  has  not  undertaken  to  say  that 
Trumbull  tells  a  lie  about  these  words  being 
stricken  out ;  but  he  is  really,  when  pushed  up 
to  it,  only  taking  an  issue  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  words.  Now,  then,  if  there  be  any  issue  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  words,  or  if  there  be  upon  the 
question  of  fact  as  to  whether  these  words  were 
stricken  out,  I  have  before  me  what  I  suppose 
to  be  a  genuine  copy  of  the  Toombs  bill,  in  which 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  words  Trumbull  says 
were  in  it,  were,  in  fact,  originally  there.  If 
there  be  any  dispute  upon  the  fact,  I  have  got  the 
documents  here  to  show  they  were  there.  If 
there  be  any  controversy  upon  the  sense  of  the 
words — whether  these  words  which  were  stricken 
out  really  constituted  a  provision  for  submitting 
the  matter  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  as  that  is  a 
matter  of  argument,  I  think  I  may  as  well  use 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  295 

Trumbull's   own   argument.    He   says   that   the 
proposition  is  in  these  words : 

That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are 
hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  people  of 
Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or 
rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and 
ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United 
States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas. 

Now,  Trumbull  alleges  that  these  last  words 
were  stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it  came  back, 
and  he  said  this  was  a  provision  for  submitting 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  his 
argument  is  this :  "Would  it  have  been  possible 
to  ratify  the  land  propositions  at  the  election 
for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  unless  such 
an  election  was  to  be  held  ?"  That  is  Trumbull's 
argument.  Now,  Judge  Douglas  does  not  meet 
the  charge  at  all,  but  stands  up  and  says  there 
was  no  such  proposition  in  that  bill  for  submit- 
ting the  constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the 
people.  Trumbull  admits  that  the  language  is 
not  a  direct  provision  for  submitting  it,  but  it  is 
a  provision  necessarily  implied  from  another  pro- 
vision. He  asks  you  how  it  is  possible  to  ratify  the 
land  proposition  at  the  election  for  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution,  if  there  was  no  election  to  be 
held  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  And 
he  goes  on  to  show  that  it  is  not  any  less  a  law 
because  the  provision  is  put  in  that  indirect  shape 
than  it  would  be  if  it  was  put  directly.  But  I 
presume  I  have  said,  enough  to  draw  attention  to 
this  point,  and  I  pass  it  by  also. 

Another  one  of  the  points  that  Judge  Douglas 
makes  upon  Trumbull,  and  at  very  great  length, 
is  that  Trumbull,  while  the  bill  was  pending,  said 


296  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  18 

in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  that  he  supposed  the 
constitution  to  be  made  would  have  to  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people.  He  asks,  if  Trumbull  thought 
so  then,  what  ground  is  there  for  anybody  think- 
ing otherwise  now?  Fellow-citizens,  this  much 
may  be  said  in  reply :  That  bill  had  been  in  the 
hands  of  a  party  to  which  Trumbull  did  not  be- 
long. It  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  committee 
at  the  head  of  which  Judge  Douglas  stood. 
Trumbull  perhaps  had  a  printed  copy  of  the 
original  Toombs  bill.  I  have  not  the  evidence  on 
that  point,  except  a  sort  of  inference  I  draw  from 
the  general  course  of  business  there.  What  al- 
terations, or  what  provisions  in  the  way  of  alter- 
ing, were  going  on  in  committee,  Trumbull  had 
no  means  of  knowing,  until  the  altered  bill  was 
reported  back.  Soon  afterward,  when  it  was  re- 
ported back,  there  was  a  discussion  over  it,  and 
perhaps  Trumbull  in  reading  it  hastily  in  the  al- 
tered form  did  not  perceive  all  the  bearings  of 
the  alterations.  He  was  hastily  borne  into  the 
debate,  and  it  does  not  follow  that  because  there 
w^as  something  in  it  Trumbull  did  not  perceive, 
that  something  did  not  exist.  More  than  this, 
is  it  true  that  what  Trumbull  did  can  have  any 
effect  on  what  Douglas  did?  Suppose  Trum- 
bull had  been  in  the  plot  with  these  other  men, 
would  that  let  Douglas  out  of  it?  Would  it  ex- 
onerate Douglas  that  Trumbull  didn't  then  per- 
ceive he  was  in  the  plot  ?  He  also  asks  the  ques- 
tion :  Why  didn't  Trumbull  propose  to  amend  the 
bill  if  he  thought  it  needed  any  amendment? 
Why,  I  believe  that  everything  Judge  Trumbull 
had  proposed,  particularly  in  connection  with 
this  question  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  since  he 
had  been  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  had  been 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  297 

promptly  voted  down  by  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends.  He  had  no  promise  that  an  amendment 
offered  by  him  to  anything  on  this  subject  would 
receive  the  slightest  consideration.  Judge  Trum- 
bull did  bring  the  notice  of  the  Senate  at  that 
time  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  provision  for 
submitting  the  constitution  about  to  be  made  for 
the  people  of  Kansas,  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I 
believe  I  may  venture  to  say  that  Judge  Douglas 
made  some  reply  to  this  speech  of  Judge  Trum- 
bull's, but  he  never  noticed  that  part  of  it  at  all. 
And  so  the  thing  passed  by.  I  think,  then,  the 
fact  that  Judge  Trumbull  offered  no  amendment, 
does  not  throw  much  blame  upon  him ;  and  if  it 
did,  it  does  not  reach  the  question  of  fact  as  to 
what  Judge  Douglas  was  doing.  I  repeat  that  if 
Trumbull  had  himself  been  in  the  plot,  it  would 
not  at  all  relieve  the  others  who  were  in  it  from 
blame.  If  I  should  be  indicted  for  murder,  and 
upon  the  trial  it  should  be  discovered  that  I  had 
been  implicated  in  that  murder,  but  that  the  pros- 
ecuting witness  was  guilty  too,  that  would  not  at 
all  touch  the  question  of  my  crime.  It  would 
be  no  relief  to  my  neck  that  they  discovered  this 
other  man  who  charged  the  crime  upon  me  to  be 
guilty  too. 

Another  one  of  the  points  Judge  Douglas 
makes  upon  Judge  Trumbull  is  that  when  he 
spoke  in  Chicago  he  made  his  charge  to  rest 
upon  the  fact  that  the  bill  had  the  provision  in  it 
for  submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the 
people,  when  it  went  into  his  (Judge  Douglas's) 
hands,  that  this  was  missing  when  he  reported  the 
bill  to  the  Senate,  and  that  in  a  public  speech  he 
had  subsequently  said  the  alteration  in  the  bill 
was  made  while  it  was  in  committee,  and  that  it 


298         -      DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  18 

was  made  in  consultation  between  him  (Judge 
Douglas)  and  Toombs.  And  Judge  Douglas 
goes  on  to  comment  upon  the  fact  of  Trumbull's 
adducing  in  his  Alton  speech  the  proposition  that 
the  bill  not  only  came  back  with  that  proposition 
stricken  out,  but  with  another  clause  and  another 
provision  in  it  saying  that  ''until  the  complete 
execution  of  this  act  there  shall  be  no  election  in 
said  Territory,"  which  Trumbull  argued  was  not 
only  taking  the  provision  for  submitting  to  a 
vote  of  the  people  out  of  the  bill,  but  was  adding 
an  affirmative  one,  in  that  it  prevented  the  people 
from  exercising  the  right  under  a  bill  that  was 
merely  silent  on  the  question.  Now  in  regard  to 
what  he  says,  that  Trumbull  shifts  the  issue — 
that  he  shifts  his  ground — and  I  believe  he  uses 
the  term  that  "it  being  proven  false,  he  has 
changed  ground," — I  call  upon  all  of  you  when 
you  come  to  examine  that  portion  of  Trumbull's 
speech  (for  it  will  make  a  part  of  mine),  to  ex- 
amine whether  Trumbull  has  shifted  his  ground 
or  not.  I  say  he  did  not  shift  his  ground,  but 
that  he  brought  forward  his  original  charge,  and 
the  evidence  to  sustain  it,  yet  more  fully,  but  pre- 
cisely as  he  originally  made  it.  Then,  in  addi- 
tion thereto,  he  brought  in  a  new  piece  of  evi- 
dence. He  shifted  no  ground.  He  brought  no 
new  piece  of  evidence  inconsistent  with  his  for- 
mer testimony,  but  he  brought  a  new  piece  tend- 
ing, as  he  thought,  and  as  I  think,  to  prove  his 
proposition.  To  illustrate :  A  man  brings  an  ac- 
cusation against  another,  and  on  trial  the  man 
making  the  charge  introduces  A  and  B  to  prove 
the  accusation.  At  a  second  trial  he  introduces 
the  same  witnesses,  who  tell  the  same  story  as 
before,  and  a  third  witness  who  tells  the  same 


_j 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  299 

thing,  and  in  addition  gives  further  testimony 
corroborative  of  the  charge.  So  with  Trumbull. 
There  was  no  shifting  of  ground,  nor  inconsist- 
ency of  testimony  between  the  new  piece  of  evi- 
dence and  what  he  originally  introduced. 

But  Judge  Douglas  says  that  he  himself  moved 
to  strike  out  that  last  provision  of  the  bill,  and 
that  on  his  motion  it  was  stricken  out  and  a  sub- 
stitute inserted.  That  I  presume  is  the  truth. 
I  presume  it  is  true  that  that  last  proposition 
was  stricken  out  by  Judge  Douglas.  Trumbull 
has  not  said  it  was  not.  Trumbull  has  himself 
said  that  it  was  so  stricken  out.  He  says :  'T  am 
speaking  of  the  bill  as  Judge  Douglas  reported 
it  back.  It  was  amended  somewhat  in  the  Sen- 
ate before  it  passed,  but  I  am  speaking  of  it  as 
he  brought  it  back."  Now,  when  Judge  Douglas 
parades  the  fact  that  the  provision  was  stricken 
out  of  the  bill  when  it  came  back,  he  asserts 
nothing  contrary  to  what  Trumbull  alleges. 
Trumbull  has  only  said  that  he  originally  put  it 
in — not  that  he  did  not  strike  it  out.  Trumbull 
says  it  was  not  in  the  bill  when  it  went  to  the 
committee.  When  it  came  back  it  was  in,  and 
Judge  Douglas  said  the  alterations  were  made 
by  him  in  consultation  with  Toombs.  Trumbull 
alleges  therefore,  as  his  conclusion,  that  Judge 
Douglas  put  it  in.  Then  if  Douglas  wants  to 
contradict  Trumbull  and  call  him  a  liar,  let  him 
say  he  did  not  put  it  in,  and  not  that  he  didn't  take 
it  out  again.  It  is  said  that  a  bear  is  sometimes 
hard  enough  pushed  to  drop  a  cub,  and  so  I  pre- 
sume it  was  in  this  case.  I  presume  the  truth  is 
that  Douglas  put  it  in  and  afterward  took  it  out. 
That,  I  take  it,  is  the  truth  about  it.  Judge 
Trumbull  says  one  thing;  Douglas  says  another 


300  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

thing,  and  the  two  don't  contradict  one  another 
at  all.  The  question  is,  what  did  he  put  it  in  for? 
In  the  first  place,  what  did  he  take  the  other  pro- 
vision out  of  the  bill  for? — the  provision  which 
Trumbull  argued  was  necessary  for  submitting 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people?  What 
did  he  take  that  out  for?  and  having  taken  it  out, 
what  did  he  put  this  in  for?  I  say  that,  in  the 
run  of  things,  it  is  not  unlikely  forces  conspired 
to  render  it  vastly  expedient  for  Judge  Douglas 
to  take  the  latter  clause  out  again.  The  question 
that  Trumbull  has  made  is  that  Judge  Douglas 
put  it  in,  and  he  don't  meet  Trumbull  at  all  un- 
less he  denies  that. 

In  the  clause  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  upon 
this  subject  he  uses  this  language  toward  Judge 
Trumbull.  He  says :  "He  forges  his  evidence 
from  beginning  to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the  rec- 
ord he  endeavors  to  bolster  up  his  false  charge. '^ 
Well,  that  is  a  pretty  serious  statement.  Trum- 
bull forges  his  evidence  from  beginning  to  end. 
Now  upon  my  own  authority  I  say  that  it  is  not 
true.  What  is  a  forgery  ?  Consider  the  evidence 
that  Trumbull  has  brought  forward.  When  you 
come  to  read  the  speech,  as  you  will  be  able  to, 
examine  whether  the  evidence  is  a  forgery  from 
beginning  to  end.  He  had  the  bill  or  document 
in  his  hand  like  that  [holding  7ip  a  paper].  He 
says  that  is  a  copy  of  the  Toombs  bill — the 
amendment  offered  by  Toombs.  He  says  that  is 
a  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  was  introduced  and  went 
into  Judge  Douglas's  hands.  Now,  does  Judge 
Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery?  That  is  one 
thing  Trumbull  brought  forward.  Judge  Doug- 
las says  he  forged  it  from  beginning  to  end ! 
That   is    the    ''beginning,"    we    will   say.    Does 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  301 

Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery?  Let  him  say  it 
to-day,  and  we  will  have  a  subsequent  examina- 
tion upon  this  subject.  Trumbull  then  holds  up 
another  document  like  this,  and  says  that  is  an 
exact  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  came  back  in  the 
amended  form  out  of  Judge  Douglas's  hands. 
Does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery  ?  Does 
he  say  it  in  his  sweeping  charge  ?  Does  he  say  so 
now  ?  If  he  does  not,  then  take  this  Toombs  bill 
and  the  bill  in  the  amended  form,  and  it  only 
needs  to  compare  them  to  see  that  the  provision 
is  in  the  one  and  not  in  the  other;  it  leaves  the 
inference  inevitable  that  it  was  taken  out. 

But  while  I  am  dealing  with  this  question,  let 
us  see  what  Trumbull's  other  evidence  is.  One 
other  piece  of  evidence  I  will  read.  Trumbull 
says  there  are  in  this  original  Toombs  bill  these 
words :  **That  the  following  propositions  be, 
and  the  same  are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said 
convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when 
formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection; 
which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and  ratified 
by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas." 
Now,  if  it  is  said  that  this  is  a  forgery,  we  will 
open  the  paper  here  and  see  whether  it  is  or  not. 
Again,  Trumbull  says,  as  he  goes  along,  that 
Mr.  Bigler  made  the  following  statement  in  his 
place  in  the  Senate,  December  9,  1857  • 

I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by 
senators  before  the  bill  was  introduced,  and  the  ques- 
tion was  raised  and  discussed,  whether  the  constitution, 
when  formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people.  It  was  held  by  those  most  intelligent  on  the 
subject,  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding 


302  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

that  Territory,  [and]  the  danger  of  any  experiment  at 
that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be  better  there 
should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it 
was  my  understanding,  in  all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that 
the  convention  would  make  a  constitution,  and  send  it 
here  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote. 

Then  Trumbull  follows  on : 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21  st  Decem- 
ber, 1857  [Congressional  Globe,  same  volume,  page 
113],  Senator  Bigler  said:  "Nothing  was  further 
from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or  confiden- 
tial interview.  The  meeting  was  not  of  that  character. 
Indeed,  it  was  semi-official  and  called  to  promote  the 
public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the 
conference  under  the  impression  that  it  had  been 
deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit  Kansas  as  a 
State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and 
that  for  delegates  to  this  convention.  This  impression 
was  stronger  because  I  thought  the  spirit  of  the  bill 
infringed  upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to 
which  I  had  great  aversion ;  but  with  the  hope  of  accom- 
plishing a  great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been 
made  in  that  direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this 
objection,  and  concluded  to  support  the  measure.  I 
have  a  few  items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of 
these  impressions,  and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be 
content.  I  have  before  me  the  bill  reported  by  the 
senator  from  Illinois  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  provid- 
ing for  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third 
section  of  which  reads  as  follows : 

'*  'That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  people 
of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or 
rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and 
ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United 
States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas.' 

"The  bill  read  in  his  place  by  the  senator  from 
Georgia,  on  the  25th  of  June,  and  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section,  word 
for  word.  Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at 
the  conference  referred  to ;  but,  sir,  when  the  senator 
from  Illinois   reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the   Senate 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  303 

with  amendments  the  next  morning,  it  did  not  contain 
that  portion  of  the  third  section  which  indicated  to  the 
convention  that  the  constitution  should  be  approved  by 
the  people.  The  words,  'and  ratified  by  the  people  at 
the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,'  had 
been  stricken  out." 

Now  these  things  Trumbull  says  were  stated 
by  Bigler  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  on  certain 
days,  and  that  they  are  recorded  in  the  Congres- 
sional Globe  on  certain  pages.  Does  Judge 
Douglas  say  this  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  there 
is  no  such  thing  in  the  Congressional  Globe? 
What  does  he  mean  when  he  says  Judge  Trum- 
bull forges  his  evidence  from  beginning  to  end? 
So  again  he  says,  in  another  place,  that  Judge 
Douglas,  in  his  speech  December  9,  1857  [Con- 
gressional Globe,  Part  I,  page  15],  stated: 

That  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  I  [Mr. 
Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from  the  committee  on  Terri- 
tories, to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble 
and  form  a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently 
the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  brought  for- 
ward a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  being  modi- 
fied by  him  and  myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by 
the  Senate. 

Now  Trumbull  says  this  is  a  quotation  from 
a  speech  of  Douglas,  and  is  recorded  in  the  Con- 
gressional Globe.  Is  it  a  forgery?  Is  it  there  or 
not?  It  may  not  be  there,  but  I  want  the  judge 
to  take  these  pieces  of  evidence,  and  distinctly 
say  they  are  forgeries  if  he  dare  do  it.  [A  voice: 
"He  zvill."]  Well,  sir,  you  had  better  not  com- 
mit him.  He  gives  other  quotations — another 
from  Judge  Douglas.     He  says : 

I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation,  from 
any  one  member  of  the  Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on 


304  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  18 

the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union,  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the 
public.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  on  all  sides  of  the 
chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the 
opponents  of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they 
would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if  they  had  made 
it,  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the 
clause.  That  is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President 
found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for  granted 
that  that  would  be  done  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have 
been  done. 

Judge  Trumbull  says  Douglas  made  that 
speech,  and  it  is  recorded.  Does  Judge  Douglas 
say  it  is  forgery,  and  was  not  true?  Trumbull 
says  somewhere,  and  I  propose  to  skip  it,  but  it 
will  be  found  by  any  one  who  will  read  this  de- 
bate, that  he  did  distinctly  bring  it  to  the  notice 
of  those  who  were  engineering  the  bill,  that  it 
lacked  that  provision,  and  then  he  goes  on  to 
give  another  quotation  from  Judge  Douglas, 
where  Judge  Trumbull  uses  this  language : 

Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day  and  in  the 
same  debate,  probably  recollecting  or  being  reminded  of 
the  fact  that  I  had  objected  to  the  Toombs  bill,  when 
pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  a  submission  of  the 
constitution  to  the  people,  made  another  statement, 
which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume  of  the  Globe, 
page  22,  in  which  he  says : 

"That  the  bill  was  silent  on  this  subject  was  true,  and 
my  attention  was  called  to  that  about  the  time  it  was 
passed ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that 
powers  not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course 
the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the  people." 

Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  state- 
ment just  before  made,  that  had  the  point  been  made  it 
•would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new  dis- 
covery, you  will  determine. 

So  I  say.  I  do  not  know  whether  Judge  Doug- 
las will  dispute  this,  and  yet  maintain  his  posi- 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  305 

tion  that  Trumbull's  evidence  "was  forged  from 
beginning  to  end."  I  will  remark  that  I  have  not 
got  these  Congressional  Globes  with  me.  They 
are  large  books  and  difficult  to  carry  about,  and 
if  Judge  Douglas  shall  say  that  on  these  points 
where  Trumbull  has  quoted  from  them,  there 
are  no  such  passages  there,  I  shall  not  be  able  to 
prove  they  are  there  upon  this  occasion,  but  I 
will  have  another  chance.  Whenever  he  points 
out  the  forgery  and  says,  'T  declare  that  this  par- 
ticular thing  which  Trumbull  has  uttered  is  not 
to  be  found  where  he  says  it  is,"  then  my  atten- 
tion will  be  drawn  to  that,  and  I  will  arm  myself 
for  the  contest — stating  now  that  I  have  not  the 
slightest  doubt  on  earth  that  I  will  find  every 
quotation  just  where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then 
the  question  is,  how  can  Douglas  call  that  a  for- 
gery? How  can  he  make  out  that  it  is  a  forgery? 
What  is  a  forgery?  It  is  the  bringing  forward 
something  in  writing  or  in  print  purporting  to  be 
of  certain  efifect  when  it  is  altogether  untrue. 
If  you  come  forward  with  my  note  for  one  hun- 
dred dollars  when  I  have  never  given  such  a 
note,  there  is  a  forgery.  If  you  come  forward 
with  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  by  me 
which  I  never  wrote,  there  is  another  forgery. 
If  you  produce  anything  in  writing  or  in  print 
saying  it  is  so  and  so,  the  document  not  being 
genuine,  a  forgery  has  been  committed.  How 
do  you  make  this  a  forgery  when  every  piece  of 
the  evidence  is  genuine  ?  If  Judge  Douglas  does 
say  these  documents  and  quotations  are  false  and 
forged,  he  has  a  full  right  to  do  so,  but  until  he 
does  it  specifically,  we  don't  know  how  to  get 
at  him.  If  he  does  say  they  are  false  and  forged, 
I  will  then  look  further  into  it,  and  I  presume  I 


3o6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

can  procure  the  certificates  of  the  proper  officers 
that  they  are  genuine  copies.  I  have  no  doubt 
each  of  these  extracts  will  be  found  exactly 
where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then  I  leave  it  to  you 
if  Judge  Douglas,  in  making  his  sweeping  charge 
that  Judge  Trumbull's  evidence  is  forged  from 
beginning  to  end,  at  all  meets  the  case — if  that  is 
the  way  to  get  at  the  facts.  I  repeat  again,  if 
he  will  point  out  which  one  is  a  forgery,  I  will 
carefully  examine  it,  and  if  it  proves  that  any 
one  of  them  is  really  a  forgery,  it  will  not 
be  me  who  will  hold  to  it  any  longer.  I  have 
always  wanted  to  deal  with  every  one  I  meet 
candidly  and  honestly.  If  I  have  made  any  as- 
sertion not  warranted  by  facts,  and  it  is  pointed 
out  to  me,  I  will  withdraw  it  cheerfully.  But  I 
do  not  choose  to  see  Judge  Trumbull  calumni- 
ated, and  the  evidence  he  has  brought  forward 
branded  in  general  terms  "a  forgery  from  begin- 
ning to  end."  This  is  not  the  legal  way  of  meet- 
ing a  charge,  and  I  submit  to  all  intelligent  per- 
sons, both  friends  of  Judge  Douglas  and  of  my- 
self, whether  it  is. 

The  point  upon  Judge  Douglas  is  this.  The  bill 
that  went  into  his  hands  had  the  provision  in  it 
for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people  ; 
and  I  say  its  language  amounts  to  an  express 
provision  for  a  submission,  and  that  he  took  the 
provision  out.  He  says  it  was  known  that  the 
bill  was  silent  in  this  particular ;  but  I  say.  Judge 
Douglas,  it  was  not  silent  when  you  got  it.  It 
was  vocal  with  the  declaration  when  you  got  it, 
for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people. 
And  now,  my  direct  question  to  Judge  Douglas 
is  to  answer  why,  if  he  deemed  the  bill  silent  on 
this  point,  he  found  it  necessary  to  strike  out 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  307 

those  particular  harmless  words.  If  he  had 
found  the  bill  silent  and  without  this  provision, 
he  might  say  what  he  does  now.  If  he  supposes 
it  was  implied  that  the  constitution  would  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  vote  of  the  people,  how  could  these 
two  lines  so  encumber  the  statute  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  strike  them  out?  How  could  he  in- 
fer that  a  submission  was  still  implied,  after  its 
express  provision  had  been  stricken  from  the 
bill?  I  find  the  bill  vocal  with  the  provision, 
while  he  silenced  it.  He  took  it  out,  and  al- 
though he  took  out  the  other  provision  prevent- 
ing a  submission  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  I  ask, 
why  did  you  first  put  it  in?  I  ask  him  whether 
he  took  the  original  provision  out,  which  Trum- 
bull alleges  was  in  the  bill?  If  he  admits  that 
he  did  take  it  out,  I  ask  him  what  he  did  it  for?  It 
looks  to  us  as  if  he  had  altered  the  bill.  If  it  looks 
differently  to  him — if  he  has  a  different  reason 
for  his  action  from  the  one  we  assign  him — he 
can  tell  it.  I  insist  upon  knowing  why  he  made 
the  bill  silent  upon  that  point  when  it  was  vocal 
before  he  put  his  hands  upon  it. 

I  was  told,  before  my  last  paragraph,  that  my 
time  was  within  three  minutes  of  being  out.  I 
presume  it  is  expired  now.    I  therefore  close. 

Extract  from  Mr.  TrumhidVs  Speech  Made  at 
Alton,  Referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  His 
Opening  at  Charleston. 

I  come  now  to  another  extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr. 
Douglas,  made  at  Beardstown,  and  reported  in  the 
Missouri  Republican.  This  extract  has  reference  to  a 
statement  made  by  me  at  Chicago,  wherein  I  charged 
that  an  agreement  had  been  entered  into  by  the  very 
persons  now  claiming  credit  for  opposing  a  constitution 


3o8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       tSept.  i8 

not  submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  constitution 
formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving  the  people  of 
Kansas  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  Without  meet- 
ing this  charge,  which  I  substantiated  by  a  reference  to 
the  record,  my  colleague  is  reported  to  have  said : 

For  when  this  charge  was  once  made  in  a  much  milder 
form  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  I  did  brand  it  as 
a  He  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  Mr.  Trumbull 
sat  and  heard  it  thus  branded,  without  daring  to  say  it 
was  true.  I  tell  you  he  knew  it  to  be  false  when  he  uttered 
it  at  Chicago  ;  and  yet  he  says  he  is  "going  to  cram  the  lie 
down  his  throat  until  he  should  cry  enough."  The  miser- 
able, craven-hearted  wretch !  he  would  rather  have  both 
ears  cut  off  than  to  use  that  language  in  my  presence, 
where  I  could  call  him  to  account.  I  see  the  object  is  to 
draw  me  into  a  personal  controversy,  with  the  hope 
thereby  of  concealing  from  the  public  the  enormity  of  the 
principles  to  which  they  are  committed.  I  shall  not  allow 
much  of  my  time  in  this  canvass  to  be  occupied  by  these 
personal  assaults.  I  have  none  to  make  on  Mr.  Lincoln ;  I 
have  none  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull ;  I  have  none  to  make 
on  any  other  political  opponent.  If  I  cannot  stand  on  my 
own  public  record,  on  my  own  private  and  public  character 
as  history  will  record  it,  I  will  not  attempt  to  rise  by 
traducing  the  characters  of  other  men.  I  will  not  make  a 
blackguard  of  myself  by  imitating  the  course  they  have 
pursued  against  me.  I  have  no  charges  to  make  against 
them. 

This  is  a  singular  statement,  taken  altogether.  After 
indulging  in  language  which  would  disgrace  a  loafer  in 
the  filthiest  purlieus  of  a  fish-market,  he  winds  up  by 
saying  that  he  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of  himself, 
that  he  has  no  charges  to  make  against  me.  So  I  sup- 
pose he  considers  that  to  say  of  another  that  he  knew  a 
thing  to  be  false  when  he  uttered  it,  that  he  was  a 
"miserable  craven-hearted  wretch,"  does  not  amount  to 
a  personal  assault,  and  does  not  make  a  man  a  black- 
guard. A  discriminating  public  will  judge  of  that  for 
themselves;  but  as  he  says  he  has  "no  charges  to  make 
on  Mr.  Trumbull,"  I  suppose  politeness  requires  I 
should  believe  him.  At  the  risk  of  again  offending  this 
mighty  man  of  war,  and  losing  something  more 
than  my  ears,  I  shall  have  the  audacity  to  again  read  the 
record  upon  him,  and  prove  and  pin  upon  him,  so  that 
he  cannot  escape  it,  the  truth  of  every  word  I  uttered 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  309 

at  Chicago.  You,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  judges  to 
determine  whether  I  do  this.  My  colleague  says  he  is 
willing  to  stand  on  his  public  record.  By  that  he  shall 
be  tried,  and  if  he  had  been  able  to  discriminate  be- 
tween the  exposure  of  a  public  act  by  the  record,  and  a 
personal  attack  upon  the  individual,  he  would  have  dis- 
covered that  there  was  nothing  personal  in  my  Chicago 
remarks,  unless  the  condemnation  of  himself  by  his 
own  public  record  is  personal,  and  then  you  must  judge 
who  is  most  to  blame  for  the  torture  his  public  record 
inflicts  upon  him,  he  for  making,  or  I  for  reading  it 
after  it  was  made.  As  an  individual  I  care  very  little 
about  Judge  Douglas  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is  his 
public  acts  with  which  I  have  to  do,  and  if  they  con- 
demn, disgrace,  and  consign  him  to  oblivion,  he  has  only 
himself,  not  me,  to  blame. 

Now,  the  charge  is  that  there  was  a  plot  entered  into 
to  have  a  constitution  formed  for  Kansas,  and  put  in 
force,  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass 
upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot.  This  is 
as  susceptible  of  proof  by  the  record  as  is  the  fact  that 
the  State  of  Minnesota  was  admitted  into  the  Union  at 
the  last  session  of  Congress. 

On  the  25th  of  June,  1856,  a  bill  was  pending  in  the 
United  States  Senate  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas 
to  form  a  constitution  and  come  into  the  Union.  On 
that  day  Mr.  Toombs  offered  an  amendment  which  he 
intended  to  propose  to  the  bill,  which  was  ordered  to  be 
printed,  and,  with  the  original  bill  and  other  amend- 
ments, recommended  to  the  Committee  on  Territories, 
of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chairman.  This  amendment 
of  Mr.  Toombs,  printed  by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  a 
copy  of  which  I  have  here  present,  provided  for  the 
appointment  of  commissioners,  who  were  to  take  a  cen- 
sus of  Kansas,  divide  the  Territory  into  election  dis- 
tricts, and  superintend  the  election  of  delegates  to  form 
a  constitution,  and  contains  a  clause  in  the  i8th  section 
which  I  will  read  to  you,  requiring  the  constitution 
which  should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people 
for  adoption.     It  reads  as  follows : 

That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are 
hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  people  of 
Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and  ratified 
by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  con- 


3IO  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

stitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States,  and 
upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas,  etc. 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  of  the  newspaper  press 
that  this  section  did  not  require  the  constitution  which 
should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ap- 
proval, and  that  it  was  only  the  land  propositions  which 
were  to  be  submitted.  You  will  observe  the  language 
is  that  the  propositions  are  to  be  "ratified  by  the  people 
at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution." 
Would  it  have  been  possible  to  ratify  the  land  propo- 
sitions "at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion," unless  such  an  election  was  to  be  held? 

When  one  thing  is  required  by  a  contract  or  law  to  be 
done,  the  doing  of  which  is  made  dependent  upon,  and 
cannot  be  performed  without,  the  doing  of  some  other 
thing,  is  not  that  other  thing  just  as  much  required  by 
the  contract  or  law  as  the  first?  It  matters  not  in  what 
part  of  the  act,  nor  in  what  phraseology,  the  intention 
of  the  legislature  is  expressed,  so  you  can  clearly  ascer- 
tain what  it  is ;  and  whenever  that  intention  is  ascer- 
tained from  an  examination  of  the  language  used,  such 
intention  is  part  of  and  a  requirement  of  the  law.  Can 
any  candid,  fair-minded  man  read  the  section  I  have 
quoted,  and  say  that  the  intention  to  have  the  constitu- 
tion which  should  be  formed  submitted  to  the  people 
for  their  adoption  is  not  clearly  expressed?  In  my 
judgment  there  can  be  no  controversy  among  honest 
men  upon  a  proposition  so  plain  as  this.  Mr.  Douglas 
has  never  pretended  to  deny,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
that  the  Toombs  amendment,  as  originally  introduced, 
did  require  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  peo- 
ple. This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs  was  referred  to 
the  committee  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chairman,  and 
reported  back  by  him  on  the  30tli  of  June,  with  the 
words  "and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution"  stricken  out.  I  have  here 
a  copy  of  the  bill  as  reported  back  by  Mr.  Douglas  to 
substantiate  the  statement  I  make.  Various  other  alter- 
ations were  also  made  in  the  bill  to  which  I  shall  pres- 
ently have  occasion  to  call  attention.  There  was  no 
other  clause  in  the  original  Toombs  bill  requiring  a  sub- 
mission of  the  constitution  to  the  people  than  the  one  I 
have  read,  and  there  was  no  clause  whatever,  after  that 
.was  struck  out,  in  the  bill,  as  reported  back  by  Judge 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  311 

Douglas,  requiring  a  submission.  I  will  now  introduce 
a  witness  whose  testimony  cannot  be  impeached,  he  ac- 
knowledging himself  to  have  been  one  of  the  conspira- 
tors, and  privy  to  the  fact  about  which  he  testifies. 

Senator  Bigler,  alluding  to  the  Toombs  bill,  as  it  was 
called,  and  which,  after  sundry  amendments,  passed  the 
Senate,  and  to  the  propriety  of  submitting  the  constitu- 
tion which  should  be  formed  to  a  vote  of  the  people, 
made  the  following  statement  in  his  place  in  the  Senate, 
December  9,  1897.  I  read  from  Part  I,  Congressional 
Globe  of  last  session,  paragraph  21 : 

I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by  sen- 
ators, before  the  bill  was  introduced,  and  the  question  was 
raised  and  discussed  whether  the  constitution,  when 
formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It 
was  held  by  the  most  intelligent  on  the  subject  that  in 
view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that  Territory, 
[and'l  the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a 
popular  vote,  it  would  be  better  that  there  should  be  no 
such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it  is  my  under- 
standing, in  all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  the  convention 
would  make  a  constitution  and  send  it  here  without  sub- 
mitting it  to  the  popular  vote. 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21st  of  De- 
cember, 1857  (Congressional  Globe,  same  volume,  page 
113),  Senator  Bigler  said: 

Nothing  was  farther  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to 
any  social  or  confidential  interview.  The  meeting  was  not 
of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official,  and  called 
to  promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear 
that  I  left  the  conference  under  the  impression  that  it  had 
been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit  Kansas  as 
a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and 
that  for  delegates  to  the  convention.  This  impression  was 
the  stronger  because  I  thought  the  spirit  of  the  bill  in- 
fringed upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I 
had  great  aversion ;  but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing 
great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been  made  in  that 
direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and 
concluded  to  support  the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items 
of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these  impressions, 
and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content.  I  have  be- 
fore me  the  bill  reported  by  the  senator  from  Illinois  on 
the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the  admission  of 
Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which  reads  as 
follows : 


312  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

"That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are 
hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  people  of 
Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and  ratified  by 
the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States,  and  upon 
the  said  State  of  Kansas." 

The  bill  read  in  place  by  the  senator  from  Georgia 
on  the  25th  of  June,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  contained  the  same  section,  word  for  word. 
Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at  the  confer- 
ence referred  to  ;  but,  sir,  when  the  senator  from  Illinois 
reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the  Senate,  with  amendments, 
the  next  morning,  it  did  not  contain  that  portion  of 
the  third  section  which  indicated  to  the  convention  that 
the  constitution  should  be  approved  by  the  people.  The 
words  "and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution'  had  been  stricken  out. 

I  am  not  now  seeking  to  prove  that  Douglas  was  in 
the  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  Kansas  without 
allowing  the  people  to  vote  directly  upon  it.  I  shall  at- 
tend to  that  branch  of  the  subject  by  and  by.'  My  ob- 
ject now  is  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  plot,  what  the 
design  was,  and  I  ask  if  I  have  not  already  done  so. 
Here  are  the  facts : 

The  introduction  of  a  bill  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856, 
providing  for  the  calling  of  a  convention  in  Kansas  to 
form  a  State  constitution,  and  providing  that  the  con- 
stitution should  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption ; 
an  amendment  to  this  bill,  proposed  by  Mr.  Toombs, 
containing  the  same  requirement ;  a  reference  of  these 
various  bills  to  the  Committee  on  Territories ;  a  con- 
sultation of  senators  to  determine  whether  it  was  ad- 
visable to  have  the  constitution  submitted  for  ratifica- 
tion ;  the  determination  that  it  was  not  advisable ;  and  a 
report  of  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  next  morning,  with 
the  clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out — 
could  evidence  be  more  complete  to  establish  the  first 
part  of  the  charge  I  have  made  of  a  plot  having  been 
entered  into  by  somebody  to  have  a  constitution  adopted 
without  submitting  it  to  the  people? 

Now,  for  the  other  part  of  the  charge.  That  Judge 
Douglas  was  in  this  plot,  whether  knowingly  or  igno- 
rantly,  is  not  material  to  my  purpose.  The  charge  is 
that  he  was  an  instrument  cooperating  in  the  project  to 
have  a  constitution  formed  and  put  into  operation  with- 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  313 

out  affording  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon 
it.  The  first  evidence  to  sustain  the  charge  is  the  fact 
that  he  reported  back  the  Toombs  amendment  with  the 
clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out :  this, 
in  connection  with  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  9th 
of  December,  1857  {Congressional  Globe,  Part  I,  page 
14),  wherein  he  stated  : 

That  during  the  last  Congress,  I  [Mr.  Douglas']  re- 
ported a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  to 
authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and  form 
a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently  the  senator 
from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  brought  forward  a  substitute 
for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified  by  him  and 
myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate. 

This  of  itself  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show  that  my 
colleague  was  an  instrument  in  the  plot  to  have  a  con- 
stitution put  in  force  without  submitting  it  to  the  people, 
and  to  forever  close  his  mouth  from  attempting  to  deny. 
No  man  can  reconcile  his  acts  and  former  declarations 
with  his  present  denial,  and  the  only  charitable  conclu- 
sion would  be  that  he  was  being  used  by  others  with- 
out knowing  it.  Whether  he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
even  this  excuse,  you  must  judge  on  a  candid  hearing  of 
the  facts  I  shall  present.  When  the  charge  was  first 
made  in  the  United  States  Senate,  by  Mr.  Bigler,  that 
my  colleague  had  voted  for  an  Enabling  Act  which  put 
a  government  in  operation  without  submitting  the  con- 
stitution to  the  people,  my  colleague  {Congressional 
Globe,  last  session.  Part  I,  page  24)   stated: 

I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation  from 
any  one  member  of  the  Senate,  in  the  whole  deoate  on 
the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  on  all  sides  of  the 
chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they  would 
have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if  they  had  made  it  we 
should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the  clause. 
That  is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President  found  out 
that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for  granted  that  that  would 
be  done  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done. 

I  knew,  at  the  time  this  statement  was  made,  that  I 
had  urged  the  very  objection  to  the  Toombs  bill  two 
years  before,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submission 


314  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

of  the  constitution.  You  will  find  my  remarks,  made 
on  the  2d  of  July,  1856,  in  the  appendix  to  the  Con- 
gressional  Globe  of  that  year,  page  179,  urging  this  very 
objection.  Do  you  ask  why  I  did  not  expose  him  at  the 
time?  I  will  tell  you.  Mr.  Douglas  was  then  doing 
good  service  against  the  Lecompton  iniquity.  The  Re- 
publicans were  then  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  fight 
with  the  National  Democracy,  to  prevent  the  bringing  of 
Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State  against  the 
wishes  of  its  inhabitants,  and  of  course  I  was  unwilling 
to  turn  our  guns  from  the  common  enemy  to  strike 
down  an  ally.  Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same 
day.  and  in  the  same  debate,  probably  recollecting,  or 
being  reminded  of  the  fact,  that  I  had  objected  to  the 
Toombs  bill,  when  pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for 
the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  made 
another  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same 
volume  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  page  22,  in  which  he 
says: 

That  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  is  true,  and  my 
attention  was  called  to  that  about  the  time  it  was  passed  ; 
and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that  powers  not 
delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course  the  constitu- 
tion would  be  submitted  to  the  people. 

Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  state- 
ment just  before  made,  that  had  the  point  been  made  it 
would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new  dis- 
covery, you  will  determine ;  for  if  the  public  records  do 
not  convict  and  condemn  him,  he  may  go  uncondemned, 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  make  no  use  here  of  the 
testimony  of  Senator  Bigler  to  show  that  Judge  Doug- 
las must  have  been  privy  to  the  consultation  held  at  his 
house,  when  it  was  determined  not  to  submit  the  consti- 
tution to  the  people,  because  Judge  Douglas  denies  it, 
and  I  wish  to  use  his  own  acts  and  declarations,  which 
are  abundantly  sufficient  for  my  purpose. 

I  come  to  a  piece  of  testimony  which  disposes  of  all 
these  various  pretenses  which  have  been  set  up  for  strik- 
ing out  of  the  original  Toombs  proposition  the  clause  re- 
quiring a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people, 
and  shows  that  it  was  not  done  either  by  accident,  by 
inadvertence,  or  because  it  was  believed  that  the  bill, 
being  silent  on  the  subject,  the  constitution  would 
necessarily    be    submitted   to   the   people    for    approval. 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  315 

What  will  you  think,  after  listening  to  the  facts  already 
presented  to  show  that  there  was  a  design  with  those 
who  concocted  the  Toombs  bill,  as  amended,  not  to  sub- 
mit the  constitution  to  the  people,  if  I  now  bring  before 
you  the  amended  bill  as  Judge  Douglas  reported  it  back, 
and  show  the  clause  of  the  original  bill  requiring  sub- 
mission was  not  only  struck  out,  but  that  other  clauses 
were  inserted  in  the  bill  putting  it  absolutely  out  of  the 
power  of  the  convention  to  submit  the  constitution  to 
the  people  for  approval,  had  they  desired  to  do  so?  If  I 
can  produce  such  evidence  as  that,  will  you  not  all  agree 
that  it  clinches  and  establishes  forever  all  I  charged  at 
Chicago,  and  more  too? 

I  propose  now  to  furnish  that  evidence.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  Mr.  Toombs's  bill  provided  for  holding 
an  election  for  delegates  to  form  a  constitution  under  the 
supervision  of  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President,  and  in  the  bill,  as  reported  back  by  Judge 
Douglas,  these  words,  not  to  be  found  in  the  original 
bill,  are  inserted  at  the  close  of  the  nth  section,  viz.: 

And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no  other 
election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory. 

This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  convention 
to  refer  to  the  people  for  adoption ;  it  absolutely  pro- 
hibited the  holding  of  any  other  election  than  that  for 
the  election  of  delegates,  till  that  act  was  completely 
executed,  which  would  not  have  been  until  Kansas  ^yas 
admitted  as  a  State,  or,  at  all  events,  till  her  constitution 
was  fully  prepared  and  ready  for  submission  to  Con- 
gress for  admission.  Other  amendments  reported  by 
Judge  Douglas  to  the  original  Toombs  bill  clearly  show 
that  the  intention  was  to  enable  Kansas  to  become  a 
State  without  any  further  action  than  simply  a  resolu- 
tion of  admission.  The  amendment  reported  by  Mr. 
Douglas,  that  "until  the  next  congressional  apportion- 
ment the  said  State  shall  have  one  representative," 
clearly  shows  this,  no  such  provision  being  contained  in 
the  original  Toombs  bill.  For  what  other  earthly  pur- 
pose could  the  clause  to  prevent  any  other  election  in 
Kansas,  except  that  of  delegates,  till  it  was  admitted  as 
a  State,  have  been  inserted  except  to  prevent  a  submis- 
sion of  the   constitution,  when  formed,  to  the  people? 

The  Toombs  bill  did  not  pass  in  the  exact  shape  in 
which  Judge  Douglas  reported  it.     Several  amendments 


3i6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  iS 

were  made  to  it  in  the  Senate.  I  am  now  dealing  with 
the  action  of  Judge  Douglas  as  connected  with  that  bill, 
and  speak  of  the  bill  as  he  recommended  it.  The  facts 
I  have  stated  in  regard  to  this  matter  appear  upon  the 
records,  which  I  have  here  present  to  show  to  any  man 
who  wishes  to  look  at  them.  They  establish,  beyond  the 
power  of  controversy,  all  the  charges  I  have  made,  and 
show  that  Judge  Douglas  was  made  use  of  as  an  instru- 
ment by  others,  or  else  knowingly  was  a  party  to  the 
scheme  to  have  a  government  put  in  force  over  the 
people  of  Kansas,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity 
to  pass  upon  it.  That  others  high  in  position  m  the  so- 
called  Democratic  party  were  parties  to  such  a  scheme  is 
confessed  by  Governor  Bigler ;  and  the  only  reason  why 
the  scheme  was  not  carried,  and  Kansas  long  ago  forced 
into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  is  the  fact  that  the  Re- 
publicans were  sufficiently  strong  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives to  defeat  the  measure. 

Extract  from  Mr.  Douglas's  Speech  Made  at 
Jacksonville,  and  Referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
in  His  Opening  at  Charleston. 

I  have  been  reminded  by  a  friend  behind  me  that 
there  is  another  topic  upon  which  there  has  been  a 
desire  expressed  that  I  should  speak.  I  am  told  that 
Mr.  Lyman  Trumbull,  who  has  the  good  fortune  to 
hold  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  in  violation  of 
the  bargain  between  him  and  Lincoln,  was  here  the 
other  day  and  occupied  his  time  in  making  certain 
charges  against  me,  involving,  if  they  be  true,  moral 
turpitude.  I  am  also  informed  that  the  charges  he 
made  here  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  made 
by  him  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  which  were  printed  in 
the  newspapers  of  that  city.  I  now  propose  to  answer 
those  charges  and  to  annihilate  every  pretext  that  an 
honest  man  has  ever  had  for  repeating  them. 

In  order  that  I  may  meet  these  charges  fairly,  I  will 
read  them,  as  made  by  Mr.  Trumbull  in  his  Chicago 
speech,  in  his  own  language.     He  says: 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge  that 
there  was  a  preconcerted  arrangement  and  plot  entered  into 
by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  opposing  a 
constitution  not  submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  con- 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  317 

stitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving  the  people 
an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a 
serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night,  that  the  very  men 
who  traverse  the  country  under  banners,  proclaiming  pop- 
ular sovereignty,  by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose 
to    force    a   constitution    upon    that   people. 

Again,  speaking  to  some  one  in  the  crov^d,  he  says : 

And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the 
plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  that  people  ?  I  will  sat- 
isfy you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's 
throat,  until  he  cannot  deny  it,  and  to  the  man  who  does 
deny  it,  I  will  cram  the  lie  down  his  throat  till  he  shall 
cry  enough  !  It  is  preposterous — it  is  the  most  damnable 
effrontery  that  man  ever  put  on  to  conceal  a  scheme  to 
defraud  and  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  rights,  and  then 
claim  credit  for  it. 

That  is  polite  and  decent  language  for  a  senator  of 
the  United  States.  Remember  that  that  language  w^as 
used  without  any  provocation  whatever  from  me.  I 
had  not  alluded  to  him  in  any  manner  in  a'ny  speech 
that  I  had  made ;  hence  it  was  w^ithout  provocation. 
As  soon  as  he  sets  his  foot  within  the  State,  he  makes 
the  direct  charge  that  I  was  a  party  to  a  plot  to  force 
a  constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their 
will,  and  knowing  that  it  would  be  denied,  he  talks 
about  cramming  the  lie  down  the  throat  of  any  man 
who  shall  deny  it,  until  he  cries  enough. 

Why  did  he  take  it  for  granted  that  it  would  be 
denied,  unless  he  knew  it  to  be  false?  Why  did  he 
deem  it  necessary  to  make  a  threat  in  advance  that  he 
would  "cram  the  lie"  down  the  throat  of  any  man  that 
should  deny  it?  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  entire  Aboli- 
tion party  consider  it  very  polite  for  Mr.  Trumbull  to 
go  round  uttering  calumnies  of  that  kind,  bullying  and 
talking  of  cramming  lies  down  men's  throats ;  but  if  I 
deny  any  of  his  lies  by  calling  him  a  liar,  they  are 
shocked  at  the  indecency  of  the  language;  hence,  to- 
day, instead  of  calling  him  a  liar,  I  intend  to  prove  that 
he  is  one. 

I  wish,  in  the  first  .place,  to  refer  to  the  evidence 
adduced  by  Trumbull,  at  Chicago,  to  sustain  his 
charge.  He  there  declared  that  Mr.  Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  introduced  a  bill  into  Congress  authorizing 
the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  come 


3i8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

into  the  Union,  that,  when  introduced,  it  contained  a 
clause  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  and  that  I  struck  out  the  words  of  that 
clause. 

Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  clause  in 
the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it  out,  is  that  proof  of  a  plot 
to  force  a  constitution  upon  a  people  against  their  will? 
Bear  in  mind  that,  from  the  days  of  George  Washing- 
ton to  the  administration  of  Franklin  Pierce,  there  has 
pever  been  passed  by  Congress  a  bill  requiring  the 
submission  of  a  constitution  to  the  people.  If  Trum- 
bull's charge,  that  I  struck  out  that  clause,  were  true, 
it  would  only  prove  that  I  had  reported  the  bill  in  the 
exact  shape  of  every  bill  of  like  character  that  passed 
under  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Jack- 
son, or  any  other  president,  to  the  time  of  the  then 
present  administration.  I  ask  you  would  that  be 
evidence  of  a  design  to  force  a  constitution  on  a  people 
against  their  will?  If  it  were  so,  it  would  be  evidence 
against  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  Van 
Buren,  arid  every  other  president. 

But  upon  examination,  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs 
bill  never  did  contain  a  clause  requiring  the  constitu- 
tion to  be  submitted.  Hence  no  such  clause  was  ever 
stricken  out  by  me  or  anybody  else.  It  is  true,  how- 
ever, that  the  Toombs  bill  and  its  authors  all  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted. 
There  had  never  been  in  the  history  of  this  government 
any  attempt  made  to  force  a  constitution  upon  an  un- 
willing people,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  any  such  at- 
tempt would  be  made,  or  deemed  it  necessary  to  pro- 
vide for  such  a  contingency.  If  such  a  clause  was  neces- 
sary in  Mr.  Trumbull's  opinion,  why  did  he  not  offer  an 
amendment  to  that  effect? 

In  order  to  give  more  pertinency  to  that  question,  I 
will  read  an  extract  from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the 
Senate,  on  the  Toombs  bill,  made  on  the  2d  day  of 
July,  1856.     He  said: 


We  are  asked  to  amend  this  bill,  and  make  it  perfect, 
and  a  liberal  spirit  seems  to  be  manifested  on  the  part 
of  some  senators  to  have  a  fair  bill.  Tt  is  difficult,  I 
admit,  to  frame  a  bill  that  will  give  satisfaction  to  all ; 
but  to  approach  it,  or  come  near  it,  I  think  two  things 
must  be  done. 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  319 

The  first,  then,  he  goes  on  to  say,  was  the  application 
of  the  Wilmot  proviso  to  the  Territories,  and  the 
second  the  repeal  of  all  the  laws  passed  by  the  ter- 
ritorial legislature.  He  did  not  then  say  that  it  was 
necessary  to  put  in  a  clause  requiring  the  submission 
of  the  constitution.  Why,  if  he  thought  such  a  pro- 
vision necessary,  did  he  not  introduce  it?  He  says  in 
his  speech  that  he  was  invited  to  offer  amendments. 
Why  did  he  not  do  so?  He  cannot  pretend  that  he 
had  no  chance  to  do  this,  for  he  did  ofTer  some  amend- 
ments, but  none  requiring  submission, 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  Mr.  Trumbull  knew  at 
the  time  that  the  bill  was  silent  as  to  the  subject  of 
submission,  and  also  that  he,  and  everybody  else,  took 
it  for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  sub- 
mitted. Now  for  the  evidence.  In  the  second  speech  he 
says :  "The  bill  in  many  of  its  features  meets  my  appro- 
bation."    So  he  did  not  think  it  so  very  bad. 

Further  on  he  says: 

In  regard  to  the  measure  introduced  by  the  senator 
from  Georgia  IMr.  Toombs^,  and  recommended  by  the 
committee.  I  regard  it,  in  many  respects,  as  a  most  excel- 
lent bill ;  but  we  must  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  surrounding 
circumstances.  In  the  condition  of  things  now  existing  in 
the  country,  I  do  not  consider  it  as  a  safe  measure,  nor  one 
which  will  give  peace,  and  I  will  give  my  reasons.  First, 
it  aflfords  no  immediate  relief.  It  provides  for  taking 
a  census  of  the  voters  in  the  Territory,  for  an  election 
in  November,  and  the  assembling  of  a  convention  in 
December,  to  form,  if  it  thinks  proper,  a  constitution  for 
Kansas,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State.  It  is  not  until  December  that  the  convention  is  to 
meet.  It  would  take  some  time  to  form  a  constitution.  I 
suppose  that  constitution  would  have  to  be  ratified  by  the 
people  before  it  becomes  valid. 

He  there  expressly  declared  that  he  supposed,  under 
the  bill,  the  constitution  would  have  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people  before  it  became  valid.     He  went  on  to  say: 

No  provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  such  a  ratification. 
This  is  objectionable  to  my  mind.  I  do  not  think  the 
people  should  be  bound  by  a  constitution,  without  passing 
upon  it  directly,  themselves. 

Why  did  he  not  ofifer  an  amendment  providing  for 
such  a  submission,  if  he  thought  it  necessary?  Not- 
withstanding the  absence  of  such  a  clause,  he  took  it 


320  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

for   granted    that   the    constitution   would   have   to   be 
ratified  by  the  people,  under  the  bill. 

In  another  part  of  the  same  speech,  he  says : 

There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  dis- 
covered, about  submitting  the  constitution  which  is  to  be 
framed  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  convention  would  have  the  right  to  submit  it, 
if  it  should  think  proper ;  but  it  is  certainly  not  com- 
pelled to  do  so,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  If 
it  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  it  will  take  time,  and 
it  will  not  be  until  some  time  next  j-ear  that  this  new 
constitution,  affirmed  and  ratified  by  the  people,  would 
be  submitted  here  to  Congress  for  its  acceptance,  and 
what  is  to  be  the  condition  of  that  people  in  the  mean 
time? 

You  see  that  his  argument  then  was  that  the  Toombs 
bill  would  not  get  Kansas  into  the  Union  quick 
enough,  and  was  objectionable  on  that  account.  He 
had  no  fears  about  this  submission,  or  why  did  he  not 
introduce  an  amendment  to  meet  the  case?  [A  voice: 
''Why  didn't  you?  You  were  chairman  of  the  committee."] 
I  will  answer  that  question  for  you. 

In  the  first  place,  no  such  provision  had  ever  before 
been  put  in  any  similar  act  passed  by  Congress.  I 
did  not  suppose  that  there  was  an  honest  man  who 
would  pretend  that  the  omission  of  such  a  clause 
furnished  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  or  attempt  to  impose 
on  the  people.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  such  of  us 
as  did  not  think  that  omission  was  evidence  of  such  a 
scheme  would  offer  such  an  amendment;  but  if  Trum- 
bull then  believed  what  he  now  says,  why  did  he  not 
offer  the  amendment,  and  try  to  prevent  it,  when  he 
was,  as  he  says,  invited  to  do  so? 

In  this  connection  I  will  tell  you  what  the  main  point 
of  discussion  was.  There  was  a  bill  pending  to  admit 
Kansas  whenever  she  should  have  a  population  of 
93,420,  that  being  the  ratio  required  for  a  member  of 
Congress.  Under  that  bill  Kansas  could  not  have  be- 
come a  State  for  some  years,  because  she  could  not 
have  had  the  requisite  population.  Mr.  Toombs  took 
it  into  his  head  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  admit  Kansas  then, 
with  only  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  people,  and 
the  question  was  whether  we  would  allow  Kansas  to 
come  in  under  this  bill,  or  keep  her  out  under  mine 
until  she  had  93,420  people.    The  committee  considered 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  321 

that  question,  and  overruled  me  by  deciding  in  favor 
of  the  immediate  admission  of  Kansas  and  I  reported 
accordingly.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the  report 
which  I  made  at  that  time.     I  will  read  from  it: 

The  point  upon  which  your  committee  have  entertained 
the  most  serious  and  grave  doubts  in  regard  to  the  pro- 
priety of  indorsing  the  proposition  relates  to  the  fact  that, 
in  the  absence  of  any  census  of  the  inhabitants,  there  is 
reason  to  apprehend  that  the  Territory  does  not  contain 
sufficient  population  to  entitle  them  to  demand  admission 
under  the  treaty  with  France,  if  we  take  the  ratio  of  rep- 
resentation for  a  member  of  Congress  as  the  rule. 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  written  report  accompany- 
ing the  bill,  I  said  that  the  great  difficulty  with  the 
committee  was  the  question  of  population.  In  the 
same  report  I  happened  to  refer  to  the  question  of 
submission.     Now,  listen  to  what  I  said  about  that: 

In  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a  consti- 
tution shall  be  formed  in  any  Territory,  preparatory  to 
its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our 
republican  system,  imperatively  demand  that  the  voice  of 
the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  em- 
bodied in  that  fundamental  law  without  fraud  or  violence, 
or  intimidation,  or  any  other  improper  or  unlawful  influ- 
ence, and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those  im- 
posed by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  read  this  from  the  report  I  made  at  the  time  on  the 
Toombs  bill.  I  will  read  yet  another  passage  from  the 
same  report.  After  setting  out  the  features  of  the 
Toombs  bill,  I  contrast  it  with  the  proposition  of 
Senator  Seward,  saying: 

The  revisal  proposition  of  the  senator  from  Georgia 
refers  all  matters  in  dispute  to  the  decision  of  the  present 
population,  with  guarantees  of  fairness  and  safeguards 
against  frauds  and  violence,  to  which  no  reasonable  man 
can  find  just  grounds  of  exception,  while  the  senator  from 
New  York,  if  his  proposition  is  designed  to  recognize 
and  impart  vitality  to  the  Topeka  constitution,  proposes 
to  disfranchise  not  only  all  the  emigrants  who  have  arrived 
in  the  Territory  this  year,  but  all  the  law-abiding  men 
who  reftised  to  join  in  the  act  of  open  rebellion  against 
the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Territory  last  year,  by 
making  the  unauthorized  and  unlawful  action  of  a  political 
party  the  fundamental  law  of  the  whole  people. 


322  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS      [Sept.  i8 

^  Then,  again,  I  repeat  that  under  that  bill  the  ques- 
tion is  to  be  referred  to  the  present  population  to 
decide  for  or  against  coming  into  the  Union  under  the 
constitution  they  may  adopt. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  at  Chicago,  rested  his  charge 
upon  the  allegation  that  the  clause  requiring  submis- 
sion was  originally  in  the  bill,  and  was  stricken  out  by 
me.  When  that  falsehood  was  exposed  by  a  publica- 
tion of  the  record,  he  went  tc  Alton  and  made  another 
speech,  repeating  the  charge,  and  referring  to  other 
and  different  evidence  to  sustain  it.  He  saw  that  he 
was  caught  in  his  first  falsehood,  so  he  changed  the 
issue,  and  instead  of  resting  upon  the  allegation  of 
striking  out,  he  made  it  rest  upon  the  declaration  that 
I  had  introduced  a  clause  into  the  bill  prohibiting  the 
people  from  voting  upon  the  constitution.  I  am  told 
that  he  made  the  same  charge  here  that  he  made  at 
Alton,  that  I  had  actually  introduced  and  incorporated 
into  the  bill  a  clause  which  prohibited  the  people  from 
voting  upon  their  constitution.  I  hold  his  Alton 
speech  in  my  hand,  and  will  read  the  amendment  which 
he  alleges  that  I  offered.     It  is  in  these  words : 

And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no  other 
election   shall  be  held  in  said  Territory. 

Trum.bull  says  the  object  of  that  amendment  v/as  to 
prevent  the  convention  from  submitting  the  constitu- 
tion to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I  will  read  what  he  said 
at  Alton  on  that  subject: 

This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  convention, 
had  it  been  so  disposed,  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the 
people  for  adoption ;  for  it  absolutely  prohibited  the  hold- 
ing of  any  other  election,  than  that  for  the  election  of 
delegates,  till  that  act  was  completely  executed,  which 
would  not  have  been  till  Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State, 
or,  at  all  events,  till  her  constitution  was  fully  prepared 
and  ready  for  submission  to  Congress  for  admission. 

Now,  do  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Trumbull  supposed 
that  that  clause  prohibited  the  convention  from  sub- 
mitting the  constitution  to  the  people,  when,  in  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  he  declared  that  the  convention 
had  a  right  to  submit  it?  In  his  Alton  speech,  as  will 
be  seen  by  the  extract  which  I  have  read,  he  declared 
that  the  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  conven- 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  323 

tion  to  submit  the  constitution,  and  in  his  speech  in 
the  Senate  he  said: 

There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  dis- 
covered, about  submitting  the  constitution  which  is  to  be 
formed  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  convention  could  have  the  right  to  submit 
it,  if  it  should  think  proper,  but  it  is  certainly  not  com- 
pelled to  do  so  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 

Thus  you  see  that,  in  Congress,  he  declared  the  bill 
to  be  silent  on  the  subject,  and  a  few  days  since,  at 
Alton,  he  made  a  speech,  and  said  that  there  was  a 
provision  in  the  bill  prohibiting  submission. 

I  have  two  answers  to  make  to  that.  In  the  first 
place,  the  amendment  which  he  quotes  as  depriving  the 
people  of  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  constitution 
was  stricken  out  on  my  motion — absolutely  stricken 
out  and  not  voted  on  at  all!  In  the  second  place,  in 
lieu  of  it,  a  provision  was  voted  in  authorizing  the 
convention  to  order  an  election  whenever  it  pleased.  I 
will  read.  After  Trumbull  had  made  his  speech  in  the 
Senate,  declaring  that  the  constitution  would  probably 
be  submitted  to  the  people,  although  the  bill  was  silent 
upon  that  subject,  I  made  a  few  remarks,  and  offered 
two  amendments,  which  you  may  find  in  the  appendix 
to  the  Congressional  Globe,  Volume  XXXIII,  first 
session  of  the  thirty-fourth  Congress,  page  795. 

I  quote: 

Mr.  Douglas :  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the 
Committee  on  Territories.  On  page  8,  section  11,  strike  out 
the  words  "until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no 
other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory,"  and  insert 
the  amendment  which  I  hold  in  my  hand.' 

The  amendment  was  as  follows: 

That  all  persons  who  shall  possess  the  other  qualifica- 
tions prescribed  for  voters  uiider  this  act,  and  who  shall 
have  been  bona  fide  inhabitants  of  said  Territory  since 
its  organization,  and  who  shall  have  absented  themselves 
therefrom  in  consequence  of  the  disturbances  therein,  and 
who  shall  return  before  the  first  day  of  October  next, 
and  become  bona  fide  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  with 
the  intent  of  making  it  their  permanent  home,  and  shall 
present  satisfactory  evidence  of  these  facts  to  the  Board 
of  Commissioners,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  said  election. 


324  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 

and  shall   have  their  names  placed  on  said  corrected  list 
of  voters   for  that  purpose.' 

That  amendment  was  adopted  unanimously.  After 
its  adoption,  the  record  shows  the  following: 

Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from 
the  committee  to  follow  the  amendment  which  has  been 
adopted.  The  bill  reads  now  :  "And  until  the  complete  exe- 
cution of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said 
Territory."  It  has  been  suggested  that  it  should  be  modi- 
fied in  this  way ;  "And  to  avoid  all  conflict  in  the  complete 
execution  of  this  act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory 
are  hereby  postponed  until  such  time  as  said  convention 
shall  appoint" ;  so  that  they  can  appoint  the  day  in  the 
event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the 
Union. 

This  amendment  was  also  agreed  to  without  dissent. 

Thus  you  see  that  the  amendment  quoted  by  Trum- 
bull at  Alton  as  evidence  against  me,  instead  of  being 
put  to  the  bill  by  me,  was  stricken  out  on  my  mo- 
tion and  never  became  a  part  thereof  at  all.  You 
also  see  that  the  substituted  clause  expressly  author- 
ized the  convention  to  appoint  such  day  of  election  as 
it  should  deem  proper. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  he  made  that  speech,  knew 
these  facts.  He  forged  his  evidence  from  beginning 
to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the  record  he  endeavors  to 
bolster  up  his  false  charge.  I  ask  you  what  you  think 
of  Trumbull  thus  going  around  the  country,  falsifying 
and  garbling  the  public  records?  I  ask  you  whether 
you  will  sustain  a  man  who  will  descend  to  the  in- 
famy of  such  conduct? 

Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should 
not  hereafter  occupy  his  time  in  refuting  such  charges 
made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed 
the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold 
him  [Lincoln]  responsible  for  the  slanders. 


PART  II 

SPEECHES  AND  DEBATES 

1858-1859 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface  .........    vii 

Introduction 

Lincoln  the  Ideal  American.  By  Charles  Evans 
Hughes      ........     ix 

Joint  Debate  with  Douglas — Concluded 

Fourth  Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston — Concluded. 
September  i8,  1858     ......       i 

Fifth  Joint  Debate,  at  Galesburg.  October  7, 
1858 36 

Sixth  Joint  Debate,  at  Quincy.  October  13, 
1858 85 

Seventh  and  Last  Joint  Debate  at  Alton.  Oc- 
tober 15,  1858    .......    136 

Speeches  (March  i,  1859,  to  September  30,  1859) 
Speech   at   Chicago   on   the    Night   of   the   Mu- 
nicipal Election.     March  i,  1859         .  .  .    193 

Speech  at  Columbus,  Ohio.   September  16,  1859,  .   201" 

Address  to  Kentuckians  on  Douglas's  Fallacies, 
Delivered  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  September  17, 
1859 240 

Address  before  the  Wisconsin  State  Agricultural 
Society,  at  Milwaukee.     September  30,  1859       .  277 


4 


PREFACE 

In  this  volume  are  comprised  Douglas's 
Reply  and  Lincoln's  Rejoinder  in  their  Fourth 
Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston,  111.,  together  with 
the  last  three  debates.  The  memorable  forensic 
contest  was  formally  closed  at  Alton  on  October 
15,  1858,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  continued 
throughout  the  next  year :  by  Douglas  in  a 
speech-making  tour  through  the  South,  with 
Presidential  designs,  and  in  an  article  in  Harper's 
Magazine ;  and  by  Lincoln  in  speeches  at  Chi- 
cago, Columbus,  and  Cincinnati.  These  three 
addresses  of  Lincoln  are  also  included  in  the 
present  volume,  as  well  as  an  address  before  the 
Wisconsin  State  Agricultural  Society,  in  which 
he  attacked  slavery  as  the  enemy  of  free  labor. 


Vll 


INTRODUCTION 

Lincoln  the  Ideal  American.^ 

By  Charles  Evans  Hughes. 

There  is  one  man  who  presents  to  the  Ameri- 
can people  above  all  others  in  his  many-sided 
greatness  the  type,  the  representative,  of  those 
qualities  which  distinguish  American  character 
and  make  possible  the  maintenance  of  our  na- 
tional strength,  and  in  Abraham  Lincoln  we  rec- 
ognize not  simply  one  who  gave  his  life  for  his 
country  and  rendered  the  most  important  service 
that  any  man  could  render  in  the  preservation  of 
the  Union  but  one  who  seemed  to  have  centred 
in  himself  those  many  attributes  which  we  recog- 
nize as  the  sources  of  our  national  power.  He 
is,  par  excellence,  the  true  American. 

I  wish  in  our  colleges  and  wherever  young 
men  are  trained,  particularly  for  political  life, 
that  there  could  be  a  course  in  Lincoln.  I  wish 
our  young  men  could  be  taken  through  the  long 
efforts  of  his  career,  I  wish  they  could  become 
more  intimately  acquainted  with  the  addresses 
that  he  delivered,  I  wish  that  they  could  get  in 
closer  touch  with  that  remarkable  personality, 
then  they  would  never  find  it  possible  to  take 
a  low  or  morbid  view  of  American  opportunity. 


^From    an   extemporaneous   address    delivered   before 
the  Republican  Club  of  New  York. 

ix 


X  INTRODUCTION 

Abraham  Lincoln  was  an  acute  man,  but  we 
erect  no  monuments  to  shrewdness.  We  have  no 
memorials  by  which  we  desire  to  perpetuate  the 
records  of  American  smartness.  Skill  in  manipu- 
lation, acuteness  in  dealing  for  selfish  purposes, 
may  win  their  temporary  victories,  but  the  acute- 
ness that  the  American  people  admire  is  that 
acuteness  which  is  devoted  to  the  solution  of 
problems  affecting  their  posterity  and  directly  re- 
lated to  their  interests,  and  which  is  employed 
unselfishly  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  apart 
from  any  individual  interest. 

I  have  long  been  a  student  of  Lincoln.  I  have 
marveled  at  the  ability  which  he  displayed. 
There  has  been  no  greater  exponent  of  that 
shrewdness  of  intellect  which  so  pre-eminently 
characterizes  the  American ;  but  Abraham  Lin- 
coln devoted  all  his  talents,  his  extraordinary  per- 
spicacity, to  the  welfare  of  the  people.  He  was 
a  man  of  principle.  He  was  a  man,  all  of  whose 
acts  were  founded  upon  a  recognition  of  the 
fundamental  principles  which  underlie  our  Re- 
public. Said  he  on  one  occasion,  *^I  have  no 
sentiments  except  those  which  I  have  derived 
from  a  study  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence." He  was  profoundly  an  apostle  of  liber- 
ty. I  have  said  that  he  was  a  man  of  principle. 
Rarely  has  the  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  the 
nation  to  the  States,  and  of  government  to  the 
individual,  been  more  lucidly  expounded  than  he 
expounded  it :  "The  nation  must  control  what- 
ever concerns  the  nation.  The  States  or  any 
minor  political  community  must  control  what- 
ever exclusively  concerns  them.  The  individual 
shall  control  whatever  exclusively  concerns  him. 
That  is  real  popular  sovereignty.'* 


INTRODUCTION  xi 


AN    EXPERT    LOGICIAN 

He  was  an  expert  logician.  He  brought  to 
bear  upon  his  opponents  the  batteries  of  remorse- 
less logic.  He  had  a  profound  confidence  in 
the  reasoning  judgment  of  the  American  people. 
He  disdained  all  efl:'orts  to  capture  the  populace 
by  other  means.  There  is  nothing  more  illumi- 
nating than  his  conduct  in  that  grand  campaign 
against  Douglas  in  1858.  He  developed  his  line 
of  attack  in  a  question.  He  brought  to  bear  upon 
his  opponents  an  extraordinary  ability  of  analy- 
sis. He  eviscerated  the  subject  of  discussion 
and  he  presented  the  whole  matter  that  was  then 
before  the  great  American  nation  in  its  bare 
bones,  in  a  perfectly  cool  and  logical  considera- 
tion ;  and,  while  he  lost  the  campaign  for  the 
senatorship,  he  made  himself  the  apostle  of 
thinking  America  in  its  opposition  to  the  exten- 
sion of  slavery.  He  had  one  foundation  prin- 
ciple, and  that  was  this :  ''Slavery,"  he  said,  "is 
wrong.  It  may  be  recognized  where  it  consti- 
tutionally exists,  but  shall  it  be  extended  ?"  And 
to  every  proposition  that  was  presented  by  his 
skilful,  adroit  opponent  he  presented  not  abuse, 
not  any  appeal  to  the  emotions  of  the  multitude, 
but  cogent  reasoning  from  which  none  could 
escape ;  and,  while  he  lost  the  senatorship,  he  ap- 
peared before  the  American  people  as  represent- 
ing their  ideal  of  straightforward,  honest  repre- 
sentation of  the  truth  applicable  to  their  crisis, 
and  received  the  highest  honors  within  their  gift. 

There  never  has  been  an  illustration,  I  venture 
to  say,  within  the  memory  of  man  where  intellect 
has  exerted  so  potent  a  magnetism  and  where 
loyalty  has  been  commended  simplv  because  rea- 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

son  exerted  its  sway.  I  love  to  dwell  upon  these 
historic  events.  Any  American  who  has  failed 
to  take  advantage  of  their  study  has  lost  largely 
his  opportunity. 

A  HUMBLE   MAN 

Whenever  you  are  tempted  to  think  in  a  dis- 
couraging manner  of  the  future  of  the  American 
Republic  you  should  read  the  annals  of  those 
times  when  the  Union  itself  was  in  the  balance, 
and  you  should  realize  how  inevitably  to  the 
demand  of  reason  the  American  public  respond 
and  how  necessarily  anything  that  cannot  stand 
against  honest  judgment  must  fail  in  this  en- 
lightened Republic.  Lincoln  was  a  humble  man, 
unpretentious  and  of  lowly  birth.  He  was  with- 
out affectation ;  he  was  the  most  democratic  of 
men.  No  one  that  has  ever  lived  among  us  has 
been  so  much  a  brother  to  every  man,  however 
lowly  born  or  unfortunately  circumstanced.  His 
was  not  the  early  training  of  those  who,  like  many 
of  our  distinguished  men,  had  the  advantages 
afforded  by  parentage  with  noble  traditions, 
although  in  poor,  circumstances,  with  schooling 
and  environment  which  would  stimulate  the  lofti- 
est of  aspirations.  He  sprang  from  conditions 
which  would  seem  to  stifle  ambition.  He  simply 
was  a  man,  a  great  American,  superior  to  all 
the  disadvantages  which  surrounded  his  birth 
and  early  training,  and  there  is  no  man  who 
walks  in  any  station  of  life  in  any  part  of  the 
country  but  can  call  Lincoln  his  brother,  his 
friend,  a  man  of  like  passions  and  like  experiences 
with  himself. 

We  recognize  some  men  for  the  services  they 
have  rendered.    They  have  deserved  well  of  their 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

country.  We  recognize  Lincoln  for  his  service. 
No  one  has  deserved  better  of  his  country.  He 
rendered  a  service  which  cannot  be  eulogized  in 
too  extravagant  terms ;  but  we  forget  any- 
thing that  Lincoln  ever  did  or  anything  that  Lin- 
coln ever  said  in  the  recognition  of  the  great 
manhood  that  was  his,  which  transcended  any- 
thing he  did  because  of  what  he  was.  He 
was  a  progressive  man ;  he  was  sensitive  to  the 
demands  of  his  day.  Three  or  four  years  after 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  he  said  :  "I  have  not 
controlled  events ;  I  confess  events  have  con- 
trolled me.  After  three  years  we  find  ourselves 
in  a  situation  which  neither  party  and  no  man 
devised  or  expected."  He  was  a  man  who  met 
each  demand  as  it  arose.  To  the  radicals  he  was 
too  conservative ;  to  the  conservatives  he  was  too 
radical.  Few  in  the  community  praised  him  dur- 
ing his  life.  Probably  no  man  in  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  Republic  was  ever  so  severely  criti- 
cised and  lampooned  as  was  Lincoln  in  the  dark 
days  of  1864,  when  through  years  of  trouble  he 
had  sustained  a  burden  which  would  have  broken 
down  an  ordinary  man.  He  said  in  August  of 
that  year  that  it  seemed  there  were  no  friends, 
and  he  looked  forward  to  the  next  election  as  al- 
most certain  to  go  against  the  party  which  he 
represented. 

A  MAN  OF  GRIEF 

Without  cacrilege  I  may  say  he  was  ''a  man 
of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief."  And,  fre- 
quently alone,  without  the  sustaining  encourage- 
ment of  even  those  who  were  close  to  him  in  his 
official  family,  he  endeavored  to  exercise  that 
judgment  which  history  commends  and  that  ex- 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

traordinary  talent   for   analyzing  difficult   situa- 
tions which  is  the  marvel  of  our  later  day. 


GENTLE  BUT   FIRM 

He  was  a  humane  man,  a  man  of  emotion, 
which  he  never  allowed  to  control  his  reason ;  a 
man  of  sentiment,  of  deep  feeling.  He  was 
a  lowly  man,  never  asserted  himself  as  superior 
to  his  fellows,  but  he  could  rise  in  the  dignity 
of  his  manhood  to  a  majesty  that  has  seldom  been 
equaled  by  any  ruler  of  any  people  under  any 
form  of  government.  When  Lee  sent  to  Grant 
and  suggested  that  there  might  be  some  talk  with 
regard  to  the  disposition  that  might  be  made  of 
public  affairs  in  the  interest  of  peace,  and  Grant 
forwarded  the  communication,  or  the  substance 
of  it,  to  the  President,  the  President,  without  a 
moment's  hesitation,  and  without  consultation 
with  any  one,  wrote  in  Stanton's  name :  "The 
President  directs  me  to  say  that  he  wishes  you 
to  have  no  conference  with  General  Lee  unless 
it  be  for  capitulation  of  General  Lee's  army,  or 
on  some  minor  or  purely  military  matter.  He 
instructs  me  to  say  that  you  are  not  to  decide, 
discuss  or  confer  upon  any  political  questions. 
Such  questions  the  President  holds  in  his  own 
hands,  and  will  submit  them  to  no  military 
conferences  or  conventions." 

It  was  not  an  assertion  of  any  superiority 
which  he  felt  above  his  brother  man.  It  was 
simply  the  realization  of  the  dignity  of  his  office 
and  its  responsibility  in  a  supreme  crisis,  and  the 
willingness  to  assume  that  responsibiJity  before 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

the  American  people,  with  that  innate  confidence 
of  which  his  supreme  intellect  could  never  suffer 
him  to  be  deprived. 

TRUST    IN    THE    PEOPLE 

We  see  in  Lincoln  patience,  the  reasoning 
faculty,  humanity,  the  democratic  sentiment,  pa- 
tient consideration,  all  combined;  and  we  may 
well  learn  from  him  the  lesson  which  at  every 
hour  of  our  history  we  should  well  study.  There 
may  be  those  who  look  with  uncertainty  upon  our 
future,  who  feel  oppressed  with  the  problems  of 
the  day.     I  am  not  one  of  them. 

"Why,"  said  Lincoln,  "should  we  not  have  pa- 
tient confidence  in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the 
American  people?" 

Why  not,  indeed?  Who  are  the  American 
people?  They  are  the  most  intelligent  people 
organized  into  any  civil  society  on  the  face  of  this 
broad  earth.  They  have  abundant  opportunities 
for  education.  They  are  keen  and  alert.  They 
are  those  whom  you  meet  in  every  walk  of  life. 
Their  common  sense  is  of  general  recognition 
among  all  the  people  of  the  world.  Why  not 
have  patient  confidence  in  the  ultimate  justice  of 
the  American  people?  If  we  can  only  feel  as 
Lincoln  felt,  and  derive  our  political  sentiments 
from  a  study  of  the  principles  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  proceed  as  Lincoln  did, 
with  remorseless  logic,  to  the  consideration  of  the 
demands  of  every  exigency,  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion but  what  each  problem  will  be  solved,  that 
every  decade  of  American  history  will  witness 
a  further  advance,  and  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
future  will  far  transcend  anything  that  we  have 
realized  in  the  past. 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 


ABUSES  MUST  BE  CURED 

Undoubtedly  abuses  exist;  undoubtedly  abuses 
must  be  cured.  If  there  is  any  man  who 
stands,  or  any  set  of  men  who  think  that  by 
astuteness  they  may  stand  in  the  way  of  progress, 
and  may  prevent  the  correction  of  evils  that  exist, 
let  them  beware ;  they  will  find  themselves  impo- 
tent. Progress  will  take  no  account  of  them. 
The  American  people  will  advance  step  by  step 
surely  and  inevitably  to  a  realization  of  their 
ideals,  and  nothing  whatever  will  stand  in  the 
way  in  the  course  of  time  of  that  equality  of  op- 
portunity and  of  equal  rights  before  the  law 
which  the  Declaration  of  Independence  an- 
nounced and  which  the  Constitution  was  intended 
to  conserve. 

What  we  need  to-day  is  a  definition  of  evils. 
What  we  need  to-day  is  a  delimiting  of  abuses ; 
and  let  the  whole  power  and  strength  of  the  Re- 
public, as  represented  by  those  who  are  naturally 
its  leaders,  be  devoted  to  the  careful  and  calm 
consideration  of  remedies  in  order  that  we  may 
save  our  prosperity  and  at  the  same  time  render 
every  condition  which  threatens  us  impotent. 
The  will  of  the  people,  in  the  interest  of  the 
people,  the  deliberate  expression  of  the  popu- 
lar judgment,  must  in  this  country  at  all  times  be 
supreme.  There  is  plenty  of  coal  on  board; 
every  man  is  at  his  post ;  steam  is  up,  and  the 
only  question  is  as  to  the  direction  and  how  to 
avoid  the  sand-bars  and  shoals.  It  is  a  question 
of  the  selection  of  the  right  course.  I  believe 
most  thoroughly  in  the  judgment  of  the  Ameri- 
can people.  Every  man  in  this  country  worthy 
of  his  citizenship  desires  to  work. 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

He  desires  to  get  a  fair  opportunity  to  show 
what  is  in  him.  He  desires  to  have  the  advantages 
which  from  boyhood  he  has  been  taught  that  this 
American  Repubhc  affords.  He  desires  to  have 
hurdles  and  obstacles  which  may  have  been  put  in 
his  way  by  special  privilege  or  by  a  perversion  of 
government  removed.  He  desires  to  have  no  dis- 
advantage created  by  any  ill-considered  inter- 
ference with  government  relations.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  intends  to  have  the  fullest  advan- 
tage and  opportunity  for  the  exercise  of  his  in- 
dividual power,  with  recognition  of  the  equal 
right  of  every  other  man  to  the  exercise  of  his 
individual  power;  so  that  all  may  be  prosperous 
and  all  may  succeed ;  and  all  that  we  need  is  to 
put  a  stop  to  those  things  which  are  inimical  to 
our  common  advantage,  insist  upon  our  common 
rights,  reason  together  in  regard  to  what  is  fair 
and  what  is  just,  and  accomplish  things  with  full 
ascertainment  of  the  facts  because  they  are  right 
and  because  the  people,  in  their  deliberate  judg- 
ment, demand  that  they  should  be  accomplished. 

A  GRAND  INHERITANCE 

We  are  all  fortunate  that  we  have  a  Lincoln. 
What  would  the  country  be  if  we  were  all  a  lot 
of  sordid  money-grabbers,  with  nothing  to  point 
to  but  the  particular  sharpness  of  A,  or  the  special 
success  in  some  petty  manipulation  of  B  ?  What 
a  grand  thing  it  is  that  we  have  the  inheritance 
of  the  memory  of  a  man  who  had  everything  that 
we  could  aspire  to  in  intellectual  attainments, 
who  was  endowed  with  a  strength  of  moral  pur- 
pose, who  was  perfectly  sincere  in  the  interest 
of  the  people,  and  who  gave  his  life  work  and 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

eventually  his  life  itself  in  order  that  our  Union, 
with  its  opportunities,  might  survive. 

I  am  proud  to  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
study  Lincoln's  life.  If  any  have  failed  to  take 
advantage  of  that  opportunity  let  them  not  allow 
another  year  go  by  without  making  a  thorough 
study  of  that  career.  It  is  an  epitome  of  Ameri- 
canism. It  will  realize  all  that  they  have  dreamed 
of  and  all  that  they  can  possibly  imagine.  It  is 
simply  a  representation  of  a  man  upon  whose 
brow  God  had  written  the  line  of  superiority,  who 
never  arrogated  it  to  himself  except  in  his  great 
function  of  discharging  the  highest  office  of  gov- 
ernment. Defeated  again  and  again,  failing  to 
realize  the  ambition  that  was  next  to  him,  again 
and  again  he  arose,  by  sheer  force  of  intellect  and 
character,  until  he  came  to  the  point  where  a 
nation's  burden  was  put  upon  him,  and  he  carried 
it  so  nobly  that  forever  he  will  be  to  us  the 
nation's  representative  of  the  typical  American. 


-*.▼• 


LINCOLN    THE    CANDIDATE 

(June,  i860) 

From  a  Photogravure  after  a  Photograph  by  Hesler 


SPEECHES   AND  DEBATES 

(1858-1859) 

Fourth   Joint    Debate    with    Douglas    at 
Charleston — Concluded. 

September  i8,  1858. 
Senator  Douglas's  Reply. 

Ladies  and  Gentkmen:  I  had  supposed  that  we  as- 
sembled here  to-day  for  the  purpose  of  a  joint  dis- 
cussion between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  upon  the 
political  questions  which  now  agitate  the  whole  coun- 
try. The  rule  of  such  discussions  is,  that  the  opening 
speaker  shall  touch  upon  all  the  points  he  intends  to 
discuss,  in  order  that  his  opponent,  in  reply,  shall  have 
the  opportunity  of  answering  them.  Let  me  ask  you 
what  questions  of  public  policy,  relating  to  the  wel- 
fare of  this  State  or  the  Union,  has  Mr.  Lincoln  dis- 
cussed before  you?  Mr.  Lincoln  simply  contented 
himself  at  the  outset  by  saying,  that  he  was  not  in 
favor  of  social  and  political  equality  between  the  white 
man  and  the  negro,  and  did  not  desire  the  law  so 
changed  as  to  make  the  latter  voters  or  eligible  to 
office.  I  am  glad  that  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in 
getting  an  answer  out  of  him  upon  this  subject  of 
negro-citizenship  and  eligibility  to  office,  for  I  have 
been  trying  to  bring  him  to  the  point  on  it  ever  since 
this  canvass  commenced. 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  question  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  occupied  his  entire  time  in  discussing. 
He  spent  his  whole  hour  in  retailing  a  charge  made 
by  Senator  Trumbull  against  me.  The  circumstances 
out  of  which  that  charge  was  manufactured,  occurred 
prior  to  the  last  presidential  election,  over  two  years 


2  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

ago.  If  the  charge  was  true,  why  did  not  Trumbull 
make  it  in  1856,  when  I  was  discussing  the  ques- 
tions of  that  day  all  over  this  State  with  Lincoln  and 
him,  and  when  it  was  pertinent  to  the  then  issue?  He 
was  then  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject.  If  the 
charge  was  true,  the  time  to  have  brought  it  forward 
was  the  canvass  ol  1856,  the  year  when  the  Toombs 
bill  passed  the  Se:  ate.  When  the  facts  were  fresh  in 
the  public  mind,  when  the  Kansas  question  was  the 
paramount  question  of  the  day,  and  when  such  a 
charge  would  have  had  a  material  bearing  on  the  elec- 
tion, why  did  he  and  Lincoln  remain  silent  then,  know- 
ing that  such  a  charge  could  be  made  and  proved  if 
true?  Were  they  not  false  to  you  and  false  to  the 
country  in  going  through  that  entire  campaign,  conceal- 
ing their  knowledge  of  this  enormous  conspiracy  which, 
Mr.  Trumbull  says,  he  then  knew  and  would  not  tell  ?  Mr, 
Lincoln  intimates,  in  his  speech,  a  good  reason  why 
Mr.  Trumbull  would  not  tell;  for  he  says  that  it  might 
be  true,  as  I  proved  that  it  was  at  Jacksonville,  that 
Trumbull  was  also  in  the  plot,  yet  that  the  fact  of 
Trumbull's  being  in  the  plot  would  not  in  any  way 
relieve  me.  He  illustrates  this  argument  by  suppos- 
ing himself  on  trial  for  murder,  and  says  that  it  would 
be  no  extenuating  circumstance  if,  on  his  trial,  another 
man  was  found  to  be  a  party  to  his  crime.  Well,  if 
Trumbull  was  in  the  plot,  and  concealed  it  in  order 
to  escape  the  odium  which  would  have  fallen  upon 
himself,  I  ask  you  whether  you  can  believe  him  now 
when  he  turns  State's  evidence,  and  avows  his  own 
infamy  in  order  to  implicate  me.  I  am  amazed  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  should  now  come  forward  and  indorse 
that  charge,  occupying  his  whole  hour  in  reading  Mr. 
Trumbull's  speech  in  support  of  it.  Why,  I  ask, 
does  not  Mr.  Lincoln  make  a  speech  of  his  own  in- 
stead of  taking  up  his  time  reading  Trumbull's  speech 
at  Alton?  I  supposed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  capable  of 
making  a  public  speech  on  his  own  account,  or  I  should 
not  have  accepted  the  banter  from  him  for  a  joint 
discussion.  {"How  about  the  charges f"]  Do  not 
trouble  yourselves;  I  am  going  to  make  my  speech  in 
my  own  way,  and  I  trust,  as  the  Democrats  listened 
patiently  and  respectfully  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  his 
friends  will  not  interrupt  me  when  I  am  answering 
him.     When    Mr.    Trumbull    returned   from   the    East, 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  3 

the  first  thing  he  did  when  he  landed  at  Chicago  was  to 
make  a  speech  wholly  devoted  to  assaults  upon  my 
public  character  and  public  action.  Up  to  that  time 
I  had  never  alluded  to  his  course  in  Congress,  or  to 
him  directly  or  indirectly;  and  hence  his  assaults  upon 
me  were  entirely  without  provocation  and  without  ex- 
cuse. Since  then  he  has  been  traveling  from  one  end 
of  the  State  to  the  other  repeating  his  vile  charge.  I 
propose  now  to  read  it  in  his  own  language: 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge  that 
there  was  a  preconcerted  arrangement  and  plot  entered  into 
by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  opposing  a  con- 
stitution formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving  the  people 
any  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a 
serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night  that  the  very  men 
who  traverse  the  country  under  banners  proclaiming  pop- 
ular sovereignty,  by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose  to 
force   a  constitution  upon  that  people. 

In  answer  to  some  in  the  crowd,  who  asked  him  a 
question,  Trumbull  said: 

And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the  plot 
to  force  a  constitution  upon  that  people  ?  I  will  satisfy 
you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's  throat 
until  he  cannot  deny  it.  And  to  the  man  who  does  deny  it, 
I  will  cram  the  lie  down  his  throat  till  he  shall  cry 
enough. 

It  is  preposterous — it  is  the  most  damnable  effrontery 
that  man  ever  put  on — to  conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud 
and  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  rights,  and  then  claim 
credit   for   it. 

That  is  the  polite  language  Senator  Trumbull  applied 
to  me,  his  colleague,  when  I  was  two  hundred  miles 
ofif.  Why  did  he  not  speak  out  as  boldly  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  and  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat 
when  I  denied  the  charge,  first  made  by  Bigler,  and 
made  him  take  it  back?  You  all  recollect  how  Bigler 
assaulted  me  when  I  was  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand 
fight,  resisting  a  scheme  to  force  a  constitution  on  the 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  will.  He  then  attacked 
me  with  this  charge;  but  I  proved  its  utter  falsity, 
nailed  the  slander  to  the  counter,  and  made  him  take 
the  back  track.  There  is  not  an  honest  man  in 
America  who  read  that  debate  who  will  pretend  that 


4  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Sept.  i8 

the  charge  is  true.  Trumbull  was  then  present  in  the 
Senate,  face  to  face  with  me,  and  why  did  he  not  then 
rise  and  repeat  the  charge,  and  say  he  would  cram  the 
lie  down  my  throat?  I  tell  you  that  Trumbull  then 
knew  it  was  a  lie.  He  knew  that  Toombs  denied  that 
there  ever  was  a  clause  in  the  bill  he  brought  forward, 
calling  for  and  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Kansas 
constitution  to  the  people.  I  will  tell  you  what  the 
facts  of  the  case  were.  I  introduced  a  bill  to  author- 
ize the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and 
come  into  the  Union  as  a  State  whenever  they  should 
have  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, and  Mr.  Toombs  proposed  a  substitute,  author- 
izing the  people  of  Kansas,  with  their  then  population 
of  only  25,000  to  form  a  constitution,  and  come  in  at 
once.  The  question  at  issue  was,  whether  we  would 
admit  Kansas  with  a  population  of  25,000,  or  make  her 
wait  until  she  had  the  ratio  entitling  her  to  a  represent- 
ative in  Congress,  which  was  93,420.  That  was  the 
point  of  dispute  in  the  Committee  on  Territories,  to 
which  both  my  bill  and  Mr.  Toombs's  substitute  had 
been  referred.  I  was  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the 
committee,  my  proposition  rejected,  and  Mr.  Toombs's 
proposition  to  admit  Kansas  then,  with  her  population 
of  25,000,  adopted.  Accordingly  a  bill  to  carry  out  his 
idea  of  immediate  admission  was  reported  as  a  substi- 
tute for  mine — the  only  points  at  issue  being,  as  I  have 
already  said,  the  question  of  population,  and  the  adop- 
tion of  safeguards  against  frauds  at  the  election. 
Trumbull  knew  this, — the  whole  Senate  knew  it, — and 
hence  he  was  silent  at  that  time.  He  waited  until  I 
became  engaged  in  this  canvass,  and  finding  that  I  was 
showing  up  Lincoln's  Abolitionism  and  negro-equality 
doctrines,  that  I  was  driving  Lincoln  to  the  wall,  and 
white  men  would  not  support  his  rank  Abolitionism, 
he  came  back  from  the  East  and  trumped  up  a  system 
of  charges  against  me,  hoping  that  I  would  be  com- 
pelled to  occupy  my  entire  time  in  defending  myself, 
so  that  I  would  not  be  able  to  show  up  the  enormity 
of  the  principles  of  the  Abolitionists.  Now  the  only 
reason,  and  the  true  reason,  why  Mr.  Lincoln  has  oc- 
cupied the  whole  of  his  first  hour  in  this  issue  between 
Trumbull  and  myself,  is  to  conceal  from  this  vast 
audience  the  real  questions  which  divide  the  two  great 
parties. 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  5 

I  am  not  going  to  allow  them  to  waste  much  of  my 
time  with  these  personal  matters.  I  have  lived  in  this 
State  twenty-five  years,  most  of  that  time  have  been  in 
public  life,  and  my  record  is  open  to  you  all.  If  that 
record  is  not  enough  to  vindicate  me  from  these  petty, 
malicious  assaults,  I  despise  ever  to  be  elected  to  office 
by  slandering  my  opponents  and  traducing  other  men. 
Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  elect  him  to  the  United  States 
Senate  to-day  solely  because  he  and  Trumbull  can 
slander  me.  Has  he  given  any  other  reason?  Has  he 
avowed  what  he  was  desirous  to  do  in  Congress  on 
any  one  question?  He  desires  to  ride  into  office, 
not  upon  his  own  merits,  not  upon  the  merits  and 
soundness  of  his  principles,  but  upon  his  success  in 
fastening  a  stale  old  slander  upon  me. 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  up  to  the  time  of  the 
introduction  of  the  Toombs  bill,  and  after  its  introduc- 
tion, there  had  never  been  an  act  of  Congress  for  the 
admission  of  a  new  State  which  contained  a  clause  re- 
quiring its  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people. 
The  general  rule  made  the  law  silent  on  the  subject, 
taking  it  for  granted  that  the  people  would  demand 
and  compel  a  popular  vote  on  the  ratification  of  their 
constitution.  Such  was  the  general  rule  under  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  and  Polk,  under 
the  Whig  presidents  and  the  Democratic  presidents 
from  the  beginning  of  the  government  down,  and  no- 
body dreamed  that  an  effort  would  ever  be  made  to 
abuse  the  power  thus  confided  to  the  people  of  a 
Territory.  For  this  reason  our  attention  was  not 
called  to  the  fact  of  whether  there  was  or  was  not  a 
clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  compelling  submission,  but 
it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be 
submitted  to  the  people  whether  the  law  compelled  it 
or  not. 

Now  I  will  read  from  the  report  by  me  as  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories  at  the  time  I  reported 
back  the  Toombs  substitute  to  the  Senate.  It  con- 
tained several  things  which  I  had  voted  against  in 
committee,  but  had  been  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the 
members,  and  it  was  my  duty  as  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee to  report  the  bill  back  as  it  was  agreed  upon  by 
them.  The  main  point  upon  which  I  had  been  over- 
ruled was  the  question  of  population.  In  my  report 
accompanying  the  Toombs  bill,  I  said: 


6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Sept.  i8 

In  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a  consti- 
tution shall  be  formed  in  any  Territory,  preparatory  to 
its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the  genius 
of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican 
system,  imperatively  demand  that  the  voice  of  the  people 
shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  embodied  in  that 
fundamental  law,  without  fraud,  or  violence,  or  intimida- 
tion, or  any  other  improper  or  unlawful  influence,  and 
subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those  imposed  by 
the   Constitution    of  the   United   States. 

There  you  find  that  we  took  it  for  granted  that  the 
constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  whether 
the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  or  not.  Suppose  I 
had  reported  it  so,  following  the  example  of  Washing- 
ton, Adams,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Adams, 
Jackson,  Van  Buren,  Harrison,  Tyler,  Polk,  Taylor, 
Fillmore,  and  Pierce,  would  that  fact  have  been  evi- 
dence of  conspiracy  to  force  a  constitution  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  will?  If  the  charge 
which  Mr,  Lincoln  makes  be  true  against  me,  it  is  true 
against  Zachary  Taylor,  Millard  Fillmore,  and  every 
Whig  president,  as  well  as  every  Democratic  president, 
and  against  Henry  Clay,  who,  in  the  Senate  or  House, 
for  forty  years  advocated  bills  similar  to  the  one  I 
reported,  no  one  of  them  containing  a  clause  compell- 
ing the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people. 
Are  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull  prepared  to  charge 
upon  all  those  eminent  men  from  the  beginning  of  the 
government  down  to  the  present  day,  that  the  absence 
of  a  provision  compelling  submission,  in  the  various 
bills  passed  by  them,  authorizing  the  people  of  Terri- 
tories to  form  State  constitutions,  is  evidence  of  a 
corrupt  design  on  their  part  to  force  a  constitution 
upon  an  unwilling  people? 

I  ask  you  to  reflect  on  these  things,  for  I  tell  you 
that  there  is  a  conspiracy  to  carry  this  election  for  the 
Black  Republicans  by  slander,  and  not  by  fair  means. 
Mr,  Lincoln's  speech  this  day  is  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  fact.  He  has  devoted  his  entire  time  to  an  issue 
between  Mr,  Trumbull  and  myself,  and  has  not  uttered 
a  word  about  the  politics  of  the  day.  Are  you  going 
to  elect  Mr,  Trumbull's  colleague  upon  an  issue  be- 
tween Mr,  Trumbull  and  me?  I  thought  I  was  run- 
nmg  against  Abraham  Lincoln,  that  he  claimed  to  be 
my  opponent,   and   challenged  me  to   a  discussion   of 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  7 

the  public  questions  of  the  day  with  him,  and  was 
discussing  these  questions  with  me ;  but  it  turns  out 
that  his  only  hope  is  to  ride  into  office  on  Trumbull's 
back,  who  will  carry  him  by  falsehood. 

Permit  me  to  pursue  this  subject  a  little  further.  An 
examination  of  the  record  proves  that  Trumbull's 
charge — that  the  Toombs  bill  originally  contained  a 
clause  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people — is  false.  The  printed  copy  of  the  bill  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  held  up  before  you,  and  which  he  pretends 
contains  such  a  clause,  merely  contains  a  clause  re- 
quiring a  submission  of  the  land  grant,  and  there  is  no 
clause  in  it  requiring  a  submission  of  the  constitution. 
Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  find  such  a  clause  in  it.  My  re- 
port shows  that  we  took  it  for  granted  that  the  people 
would  require  a  submission  of  the  constitution,  and 
secure  it  for  themselves.  There  never  was  a  clause  in 
the  Toombs  bill  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  sub- 
mitted; Trumbull  knew  it  at  the  time,  and  his  speech 
made  on  the  night  of  its  passage  discloses  the  fact 
that  he  knew  it  was  silent  on  the  subject;  Lincoln 
pretends,  and  tells  you  that  Trumbull  has  not  changed 
his  evidence  in  support  of  his  charge  since  he  made  his 
speech  in  Chicago.  Let  us  see.  The  Chicago  Times 
took  up  Trumbull's  Chicago  speech,  compared  it  with 
the  official  records  of  Congress,  and  proved  that 
speech  to  be  false  in  its  charge  that  the  original 
Toombs  bill  required  a  submission  of  the  constitution 
to  the  people.  Trumbull  then  saw  that  he  was  caught, 
and  his  falsehood  exposed,  and  he  went  to  Alton, 
and,  under  the  very  walls  of  the  penitentiary,  made  a 
new  speech,  in  which  he  predicated  his  assault  upon 
me  in  the  allegation  that  I  had  caused  to  be  voted 
into  the  Toombs  bill  a  clause  which  prohibited  the 
convention  from  submitting  the  constitution  to  the 
people,  and  quoted  what  he  pretended  was  the  clause. 
Now,  has  not  Mr.  Trumbull  entirely  changed  the 
evidence  on  which  he  bases  his  charge?  The  clause 
which  he  quoted  in  his  Alton  speech  (which  he  has 
published  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the  State)  as 
having  been  put  into  the  Toombs  bill  by  me,  is  in  the 
following  words:  "And  until  the  complete  execution 
of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said 
Territory." 

Trumbull   says  that   the  object   of  that   amendment 


8 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Sept.  i8 


was   to   prevent   the   convention   from    submitting  the 
constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 

Now  I  will  show  you  that  when  Trumbull  made  that 
statement  at  Alton  he  knew  it  to  be  untrue.  I  read 
from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  Toombs 
bill  on  the  night  of  its  passage.     He  then  said : 

There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  dis- 
covered, about  submitting  the  constitution,  which  is  to 
be  formed,  to  the  people  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  convention  will  have  the  right  to  submit  it, 
if  it  should  think  proper ;  but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled 
to  do  so  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bilk 

Thus  you  see  that  Trumbull,  when  the  bill  was  on  its 
passage  in  the  Senate,  said  that  it  was  silent  on  the  sub- 
ject of  submission,  and  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
bill  one  way  or  the  other  on  it.  In  his  Alton  speech  he 
says  there  was  a  clause  in  the  bill  preventing  its  sub- 
mission to  the  people,  and  that  I  had  it  voted  in  as  an 
amendment.  Thus  I  convict  him  of  falsehood  and 
slander  by  quoting  from  him  on  the  passage  of  the 
Toombs  bill  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  State?,  his  own 
speech,  made  on  the  night  of  July  2,  1856,  and  reported 
in  the  Congressional  Globe  for  the  first  session  of  the 
Thirty-fourth  Congress,  Vol.  XXXIII.  What  will  you 
think  of  a  man  who  makes  a  false  charge  and  falsifies 
the  records  to  prove  it  ?  I  will  now  show  you  that  the 
clause  which  Trumbull  says  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my 
motion,  was  never  put  in  at  all  by  me,  but  was  stricken 
out  on  my  motion  and  another  substituted  in  its  place. 
I  call  your  attention  to  the  same  volume  of  the  Con- 
gressional Globe  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  page 
795,  where  you  will  find  the  following  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Senate : 

Mr.  Douglas :  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the 
Committee  on  Territories.  On  page  8,  section  11,  strike  out 
the  words  "until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  no 
other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory,"  and  insert 
the  amendment  which  I  hold  in  my  hand. 

You  see  from  this  that  I  moved  to  strike  out  the  very 
words  that  Trumbull  says  I  put  in.  The  Committee  on 
Territories  overruled  me  in  committee,  and  put  the  clause 
in ;  but  as  soon  as  I  got  the  bill  back  into  the  Senate,  I 
moved  to  strike  it  out,  and  put  another  clause  in  its  place. 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  9 

On  the  same  page  you  will  find  that  my  amendment  was 
agreed  to  unanimously.  I  then  offered  another  amend- 
ment, recognizing  the  right  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
under  the  Toombs  bill,  to  order  just  such  elections  as 
they  saw  proper.  You  can  find  it  on  page  796  of  the 
same  volume.     I  will  read  it : 

Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from 
the  committee,  to  follow  the  amendment  which  has  been 
adopted.  The  bill  reads  now :  "And  until  the  complete 
execution  of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory."  It  has  been  suggested  that  it  should  be 
modified  in  this  way  :  "And  to  avoid  conflict  in  the  com- 
plete execution  of  this  act,  all  other  elections  in  said 
Territory  are  hereby  postponed  until  such  time  as  said 
convention  shall  appoint";  so  that  they  can  appoint  the  day 
in  the  event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into 
the   Union. 

The  amendment  was  unanimously  agreed  to — clearly 
and  distinctly  recognizing  the  right  of  the  convention  to 
order  just  as  many  elections  as  they  saw  proper  in  the 
execution  of  the  act.  Trumbull  concealed  in  his  Alton 
speech  the  fact  that  the  clause  he  quoted  had  been 
stricken  out  on  my  motion,  and  the  other  fact  that  this 
other  clause  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion,  and  made 
the  false  charge  that  I  incorporated  into  the  bill  a  clause 
preventing  submission,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that,  on 
my  motion,  the  bill  was  so  amended  before  it  passed  as 
to  recognize  in  express  words  the  right  and  duty  of  sub- 
mission. 

On  this  record  that  I  have  produced  before  you,  I  re- 
peat my  charge  that  Trumbull  did  falsify  the  public 
records  of  the  country,  in  order  to  make  his  charge 
against  me,  and  I  tell  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  that  if  he 
will  examine  these  records,  he  will  then  know  what  I 
state  is  true.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  this  day  indorsed  Mr. 
Trumbull's  veracity  after  he  had  my  word  for  it  that  that 
veracity  was  proved  to  be  violated  and  forfeited  by  the 
public  records.  It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  in 
parading  his  calumnies  against  me,  to  put  Mr.  Trum- 
bull between  him  and  the  odium  and  responsibility 
which  justly  attach  to  such  calumnies.  I  tell  him  that  I 
am  as  ready  to  prosecute  the  indorser  as  the  maker  of  a 
forged  note.  I  regret  the  necessity  of  occupying  my 
time  with  these  petty  personal  matters.     It  is  unbecom- 


lo  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

ing  the  dignity  of  a  canvass  for  an  office  of  the  character 
for  which  we  are  candidates.  When  I  commenced  the 
canvass  at  Chicago,  I  spoke  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  terms  of 
kindness,  as  an  old  friend;  I  said  that  he  was  a  good 
citizen,  of  unblemished  character,  against  whom  I  had 
nothing  to  say.  I  repeated  these  complimentary  re- 
marks about  him  in  my  successive  speeches,  until  he 
became  the  indorser  for  these  and  other  slanders 
against  me.  If  there  is  anything  personally  disagreeable, 
uncourteous,  or  disreputable  in  these  personalities,  the 
sole  responsibility  rests  on  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Trumbull, 
and  their  backers. 

I  will  show  you  another  charge  made  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
against  me,  as  an  offset  to  his  determination  of  willing- 
ness to  take  back  anything  that  is  incorrect,  and  to 
correct  any  false  statement  he  may  have  made.  He  has 
several  times  charged  that  the  Supreme  Court,  President 
Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself,  at  the  time  I 
introduced  the  Nebraska  bill,  in  January,  1854,  ^t 
Washington,  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  establish 
slavery  all  over  this  country.  I  branded  this  charge  as  a 
falsehood,  and  he  then  repeated  it,  asked  me  to  analyze 
its  truth,  and  answer  it.  I  told  him,  "Mr.  Lincoln,  I 
know  what  you  are  after ;  you  want  to  occupy  my  time 
in  personal  matters,  to  prevent  me  from  showing  up  the 
revolutionary  principles  which  the  Abolition  party — 
whose  candidate  you  are — have  proclaimed  to  the 
world."  But  he  asked  me  to  analyze  his  proof,  and  I 
did  so.  I  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  there  was  no 
such  case  as  the  Dred  Scott  case  pending  in  the  Su- 
preme Court,  nor  was  it  brought  there  for  years  after- 
ward, and  hence  that  it  was  impossible  there  could  have 
been  any  such  conspiracy  between  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and  the  other  parties  involved.  I 
proved  by  the  record  that  the  charge  was  false,  and 
what  did  he  answer?  Did  he  take  it  back  like  an  honest 
man  and  say  he  had  been  mistaken?  No;  he  repeated 
the  charge,  and  said,  that  although  there  was  no  such 
case  pending  that  year,  there  was  an  understanding  be- 
tween the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  and  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  other  parties  in- 
volved, that  the  case  should  be  brought  up.  I  then  de- 
manded to  know  who  those  Democratic  owners  of  Dred 
Scott  were.     He  could  not  or  would  not  tell;  he  did  not 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  ii 

know.  In  truth,  there  were  no  Democratic  owners  of 
Dred  Scott  on  the  face  of  the  land.  Dred  Scott  was 
owned  at  that  time  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Aboli- 
tion member  of  Congress  from  Springfield,  Mass., 
and  his  wife;  and  Mr,  Lincoln  ought  to  have 
known  that  Dred  Scott  was  so  owned,  for  the  reason 
that  as  soon  as  the  decision  was  announced  by  the 
court.  Dr.  Chaffee  and  his  wife  executed  a  deed  emanci- 
pating him,  and  put  that  deed  on  record. 

It  was  a  matter  of  public  record,  therefore,  that  at  the 
time  the  case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court,  Dred 
Scott  was  owned  by  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress, 
a  friend  of  Lincoln's,  and  a  leading  man  of  his  party, 
while  the  defense  was  conducted  by  Abolition  lawyers ; 
and  thus  the  Abolitionists  managed  both  sides  of  the 
case.  I  have  exposed  these  facts  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
yet  he  will  not  withdraw  his  charge  of  conspiracy.  I 
now  submit  to  you  whether  3^ou  can  place  any  confidence 
in  a  man  who  continues  to  make  a  charge  when  its 
utter  falsity  is  proven  by  the  public  records.  I  will 
state  another  fact  to  show  how  utterly  reckless  and  un- 
scrupulous this  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court, 
President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself  is. 
Lincoln  says  that  President  Buchanan  was  in  the  con- 
spiracy at  Washington  in  the  winter  of  1854,  when  the 
Nebraska  bill  was  introduced.  The  history  of  this 
country  shows  that  James  Buchanan  was  at  that  time 
representing  this  country  at  the  Court  of  St.  James, 
Great  Britain,  with  distinguished  ability  and  usefulness, 
that  he  had  not  been  in  the  United  States  for  nearly  a 
year  previous,  and  that  he  did  not  return  until  about 
three  years  after.  Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  keeps  repeating  this 
charge  of  conspiracy  against  Mr.  Buchanan  when  the 
public  records  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  Having  proved  it 
to  be  false  as  far  as  the  Supreme  Court  and  President 
Buchanan  are  concerned,  I  drop  it,  leaving  the  public  to 
say  whether  I,  by  myself,  without  their  concurrence, 
could  have  gone  into  a  conspiracy  with  them.  My 
friends,  you  see  that  the  object  clearly  is  to  conduct  the 
canvass  on  personal  matters,  and  hunt  me  down  with 
charges  that  are  proven  to  be  false  by  the  public  records 
of  the  country.  I  am  willing  to  throw  open  my  whole 
public  and  private  life  to  the  inspection  of  any  man,  or 
all  men  who  desire  to  investigate  it.  Having  resided 
among  you  twenty-five  years,  during  nearly  the  whole 


12  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Sept.  i8 

of  which  time  a  public  man,  exposed  to  more  assaults, 
perhaps  more  abuse,  than  any  man  living  of  my  age,  or 
who  ever  did  live,  and  having  survived  it  all  and  still 
commanded  your  confidence,  I  am  willing  to  trust  to 
ypur  knowledge  of  me  and  my  public  conduct  without 
making  any  more  defense  against  these  assaults. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  came  here  for  the  purpose  of  discuss- 
ing the  leading  political  topics  which  now  agitate  the 
country.  I  have  no  charges  to  make  against  Mr.  Lin- 
coln, none  against  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  none  against  any 
man  who  is  a  candidate,  except  in  repelling  their  as- 
saults upon  me.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  man  of  bad  char- 
acter, I  leave  you  to  find  it  out ;  if  his  votes  in  the  past 
are  not  satisfactory,  I  leave  others  to  ascertain  the  fact ; 
if  his  course  on  the  Mexican  war  was  not  in  accordance 
with  your  notions  of  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  our  own 
country  as  against  a  public  enemy,  I  leave  you  to  ascer- 
tain the  fact.  I  have  no  assaults  to  make  upon  him,  ex- 
cept to  trace  his  course  on  the  questions  that  now  divide 
the  country  and  engross  so  much  of  the  people's  atten- 
tion. 

You  know  that  prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided 
into  two  great  political  parties,  one  the  Whig,  the  other 
the    Democratic.     I,    as   a   Democrat    for   twenty   years 
prior  to  that  time,  had  been  in  public  discussions  in  this 
State  as  an  advocate  of  Democratic  principles,  and  I  can 
appeal   with  confidence  to  every  old-line   Whig  within 
the  hearing  of  my  voice  to  bear  testimony  that  during 
all  that  period  I  fought  you  Whigs  like  a  man  on  every 
question    that    separated    the    two    parties.     I    had    the 
highest  respect  for  Henry  Clay  as  a  gallant  party-leader, 
as  an  eminent  statesman,  and  as  one  of  the  bright  orna- 
ments of  this  country ;  but  I  conscientiously  believed  that 
the  Democratic  party  was  right  on  the  questions  which 
separated    the    Democrats    from   the   Whigs.     The   man 
does  not  live  who  can   say  that  I  ever  personally  as- 
sailed Henry  Clay  or  Daniel  Webster,  or  any  one  of  the 
leaders  of  that  great  party,  whilst  I  combated  with  all 
my  energy  the  measures  they  advocated.     What  did  we 
differ  about  in  those  days?     Did  Whigs  and  Democrats 
differ   about   this    slavery   question?     On   the   contrary, 
did  we  not,  in  1850,  unite  to  a  man  in  favor  of  that  sys- 
tem  of   compromise   measures    which    Mr.    Clay    intro- 
duced, Webster  defended,  Cass  supported,  and  Fillmore 
approved  and  made  the  law  of  the  land  by  his  signature. 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  13 

While  we  agreed  on  these  compromise  measures,  we  dif- 
fered about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie 
circular,  the  subtreasury,  and  other  questions  of  that 
description.  Now,  let  me  ask  you,  which  one  of  those 
questions  on  which  Whigs  and  Democrats  then  differed 
now  remains  to  divide  the  two  great  parties?  Every 
one  of  those  questions  which  divided  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats has  passed  away;  the  country  has  outgrown  them; 
they  have  passed  into  history.  Hence  it  is  immaterial 
whether  you  were  right  or  I  was  right  on  the  bank, 
the  subtreasury,  and  other  questions,  because  they  no 
longer  continue  living  issues.  What,  then,  has  taken 
the  place  of  those  questions  about  which  we  once  dif- 
fered? The  slavery  question  has  now  become  the  lead- 
ing and  controlling  issue ;  that  question  on  which  you 
and  I  agreed,  on  which  the  Whigs  and  Democrats 
united,  has  now  become  the  leading  issue  between  the 
National  Democracy  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Republican 
or  Abolition  party  on  the  other. 

Just  recollect  for  a  moment  the  memorable  contest  of 
1850,  when  this  country  was  agitated  from  its  center  to 
its  circumference  by  the  slavery  agitation.  All  eyes  in 
this  nation  were  then  turned  to  the  three  great  lights 
that  survived  the  days  of  the  Revolution.  They  looked 
to  Clay,  then  in  retirement  at  Ashland,  and  to  Webster 
and  Cass  in  the  United  States  Senate.  Clay  had  retired 
to  Ashland,  having,  as  he  supposed,  performed  his  mis- 
sion on  earth,  and  was  preparing  himself  for  a  better 
sphere  of  existence  in  another  world.  In  that  retire- 
ment he  heard  the  discordant,  harsh,  and  grating  sounds 
of  sectional  strife  and  disunion;  and  he  aroused  and 
came  forth  and  resumed  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  that 
great  theater  of  his  great  deeds.  From  the  moment  that 
Clay  arrived  among  us  he  became  the  leader  of  all  the 
Union  men,  whether  Whigs  or  Democrats.  For  nine 
months  we  each  assembled,  each  day,  in  the  council- 
chamber,  Clay  in  the  chair,  with  Cass  upon  his  right 
hand  and  Webster  upon  his  left,  and  the  Democrats  and 
Whigs  gathered  around,  forgetting  differences,  and  only 
animated  by  one  common  patriotic  sentiment,  to  devise 
means  and  measures  by  which  we  could  defeat  the  mad 
and  revolutionary  scheme  of  the  Northern  Abolitionists 
and  Southern  disunionists.  We  did  devise  those  means. 
Clay  brought  them  forward,  Cass  advocated  them,  the 
Union   Democrats  and   Union   W^higs   voted   for   them, 


14  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Sept.  i8 

Fillmore  signed  them,  and  they  gave  peace  and  quiet  to 
the  country.  Those  compromise  measures  of  1850  were 
founded  upon  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  the 
people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  ought  to  be  left 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions 
in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. 

I  will  ask  every  old-line  Democrat  and  every  old-line 
Whig  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice,  if  I  have  not  truly 
stated  the  issues  as  they  then  presented  themselves  to 
the  country.  You  recollect  that  the  Abolitionists  raised 
a  howl  of  indignation,  and  cried  for  vengeance  and  the 
destruction  of  Democrats  and  Whigs  both  who  sup- 
ported those  compromise  measures  of  1850.  When  I 
returned  home  to  Chicago,  I  found  the  citizens  inflamed 
and  infuriated  against  the  authors  of  those  great  meas- 
ures. Being  the  only  man  in  that  city  who  was  held 
responsible  for  affirmative  votes  on  all  those  measures,  I 
came  forward  and  addressed  the  assembled  inhabitants, 
defended  each  and  every  one  of  Clay's  compromise 
measures  as  they  passed  the  Senate  and  the  House  and 
were  approved  by  President  Fillmore.  Previous  to  that 
time,  the  city  council  had  passed  resolutions  nullifying 
the  act  of  Congress,  and  instructing  the  police  to  with- 
hold all  assistance  from  its  execution ;  but  the  people  of 
Chicago  listened  to  my  defense,  and  like  candid,  frank, 
conscientious  men,  when  they  became  convinced  that 
they  had  done  an  injustice  to  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and 
all  of  us  who  supported  those  measures,  they  repealed 
their  nullifying  resolutions  and  declared  that  the  laws 
should  be  executed  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitu- 
tion maintained.  Let  it  always  be  recorded  in  history, 
to  the  immortal  honor  of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that 
they  returned  to  their  duty  when  they  found  that  they 
were  wrong,  and  did  justice  to  those  whom  they  had 
blamed  and  abused  unjustly.  When  the  legislature  of 
this  State  assembled  that  year,  they  proceeded  to  pass 
resolutions  approving  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
When  the  Whig  party  assembled  in  1852  at  Baltimore  in 
national  convention  for  the  last  time,  to  nominate  Scott 
for  the  presidency,  they  adopted  as  a  part  of  their  plat- 
form the  compromise  measures  of  1850  as  the  cardinal 
plank  upon  which  every  Whig  would  stand  and  by 
which  he  would  regulate  his  future  conduct.  When  the 
Democratic    party    assembled    at    the    same    place,    one 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  15 

month  after,  to  nominate  General  Pierce,  we  adopted  the 
same  platform  so  far  as  those  compromise  measures 
were  concerned,  agreeing  that  we  would  stand  by  those 
glorious  measures  as  a  cardinal  article  in  the  Democratic 
faith.  Thus  you  see  that  in  1852  all  the  Old  Whigs  and 
all  the  old  Democrats  stood  on  a  common  plank  so  far 
as  this  slavery  question  was  concerned,  differing  on 
other  questions. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  how  is  it  that  since  that  time  so 
many  of  you  Whigs  have  wandered  from  the  true  path 
marked  out  by  Clay  and  carried  out  broad  and  wide  by 
the  great  Webster?  How  is  it  that  so  many  old-line 
Democrats  have  abandoned  the  old  faith  of  their  party, 
and  joined  with  Abolitionism  and  Free-soilism  to  over- 
turn the  platform  of  the  old  Democrats,  and  the  plat- 
form of  the  Old  Whigs?  You  cannot  deny  that  since 
1854  there  has  been  a  great  revolution  on  this  one  ques- 
tion. How  has  it  been  brought  about?  I  answer  that 
no  sooner  was  the  sod  grown  green  over  the  grave  of 
the  immortal  Clay,  no  sooner  was  the  rose  planted  on 
the  tomb  of  the  godlike  Webster,  than  many  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Whig  party,  such  as  Seward,  of  New 
York,  and  his  followers,  led  off  and  attempted  to  Aboli- 
tionize  the  Whig  party,  and  transfer  all  your  Old  Whigs, 
bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition  camp.  Seizing 
hold  of  the  temporary  excitement  produced  in  this  coun- 
try by  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  disap- 
pointed politicians  in  the  Democratic  party  united  with 
the  disappointed  politicians  in  the  Whig  party,  and  en- 
deavored to  form  a  new  party  composed  of  all  the  Aboli- 
tionists, of  Abolitionized  Democrats  and  Abolitionized 
Whigs,  banded  together  in  an  Abolition  platform. 

And  who  led  that  crusade  against  national  principles 
in  this  State?  I  answer,  Abraham  Lincoln  on  behalf  of 
the  Whigs,  and  Lyman  Trumbull  on  behalf  of  the  Dern- 
ocrats,  formed  a  scheme  by  which  they  would  Aboli- 
tionize  the  two  great  parties  in  this  State  on  condition 
that  Lincoln  should  be  sent  to  the  United  Stales  Senate 
in  place  of  General  Shields,  and  that  Trumbull  should 
go  to  Congress  from  the  Belleville  district,  until  I  would 
be  accommodating  enough  either  to  die  or  resign  for  his 
benefit,  and  then  he  was  to  go  to  the  Senate  in  my 
place.  You  all  remember  that  during  the  year  1854 
these  two  worthy  gentlemen,  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr. 
Trumbull,  one  an  old-line  Whig  and  the  other  an  old- 


i6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

line  Democrat,  were  hunting  in  partnership  to  elect  a 
legislature  against  the  Democratic  party.  I  canvassed 
the  State  that  year  from  the  time  I  returned  home  until 
the  election  came  off,  and  spoke  in  every  county  that  I 
could  reach  during  that  period.  In  the  northern  part  of 
the  State  I  found  Lincoln's  ally,  in  the  person  of  Fred 
Douglass,  the  negro,  preaching  Abolition  doctrines, 
while  Lincoln  was  discussing  the  same  principles  down 
here,  and  Trumbull,  a  little  further  down,  was  advocat- 
ing the  election  of  members  to  the  legislature  who  would 
act  in  concert  with  Lincoln's  and  Fred  Douglass's 
friends.  I  witnessed  an  effort  made  at  Chicago  by  Lin- 
coln's then  associates,  and  now  supporters,  to  put  Fred 
Douglass,  the  negro,  on  the  stand  at  a  Democratic  meet- 
ing, to  reply  to  the  illustrious  General  Cass  when  he  was 
addressing  the  people  there.  They  had  the  same  negro 
hunting  me  down,  and  they  now  have  a  negro  traversing 
the  northern  counties  of  the  State,  and  speaking  in  be- 
half of  Lincoln.  Lincoln  knows  that  when  we  were  at 
Freeport  in  joint  discussion,  there  was  a  distinguished 
colored  friend  of  his  there  then  who  was  on  the  stump 
for  him,  and  who  made  a  speech  there  the  night  before 
we  spoke,  and  another  the  night  after,  a  short  distance 
from  Freeport.  in  favor  of  Lincoln ;  and  in  order  to 
show  how  much  interest  the  colored  brethren  felt  in  the 
success  of  their  brother  Abe,  I  have  with  me  here,  and 
would  read  it  if  it  would  not  occupy  too  much  of  my 
time,  a  speech  made  by  Fred  Douglass  in  Poughkeepsie, 
N.  Y.,  a  short  time  since,  to  a  large  convention,  in  which 
he  conjures  all  the  friends  of  negro  equality  and  negro 
citizenship  to  rally  as  one  man  around  Abraham  Lin- 
coln, the  perfect  embodiment  of  their  principles,  and  by 
all  means  to  defeat  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  Thus  you 
find  that  this  Republican  party  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  State  had  colored  gentlemen  for  their  advocates  in 
1854,  in  company  with  Lincoln  and  Trumbull,  as  they 
have  nov/.  When  in  October,  1854,  I  went  down  to 
Springfield  to  attend  the  State  fair,  I  found  the  leaders 
of  this  party  all  assembled  together  under  the  title  of  an 
anti-Nebraska  meeting.  It  was  Black  Republican  up 
north,  and  anti-Nebraska  at  Springfield.  I  found  Love- 
joy,  a  high  priest  of  Abolitionism,  and  Lincoln,  one  of 
the  leaders  who  were  towing  the  old-line  Whigs  into 
the  Abolition  camp,  and  Trumbull,  Sidney  Breese,  and 
Governor    Reynolds,    all   making   speeches    against    the 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  17 

Democratic  party  and  myself,  at  the  same  place  and  in 
the  same  cause. 

The  same  men  who  are  now  fighting  the  Dernocratic 
party  and  the  regular  Democratic  nominees  in  this  State 
were  fighting  us  then.  They  did  not  then  acknowledge 
that  they  had  become  Abolitionists,  and  many  of  them 
deny  it  now.  Breese,  Dougherty,  and  Reynolds  were 
then  fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  title  of  anti- 
Nebraska  men,  and  now  they  are  fighting  the  Democ- 
racy under  the  pretense  that  they  are  simon-pure  Demo- 
crats, saying  that  they  are  authorized  to  have  every  office- 
holder in  Illinois  beheaded  who  prefers  the  election  of 
Douglas  to  that  of  Lincoln,  or  the  success  of  the  Demo- 
cratic ticket  in  preference  to  the  Abolition  ticket  for 
members  of  Congress,  State  officers,  members  of  the 
legislature,  or  any  office  in  the  State.  They  canvassed 
the  State  against  us  in  1854,  as  they  are  doing  now,  own- 
ing different  names  and  different  principles  in  different 
localities,  but  having  a  common  object  in  view,  viz.:  the 
defeat  of  all  men  holding  national  principles  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  sectional  Abolition  party.  They  carried  the 
legislature  in  1854,  and  when  it  assembled  in  Springfield 
they  proceeded  to  elect  a  United  States  senator,  all  vot- 
ing for  Lincoln  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  which  ex- 
ceptions prevented  them  from  quite  electing  him.  And 
why  should  they  not  elect  him?  Had  not  Trumbull 
agreed  that  Lincoln  should  have  Shields's  place?  Had 
not  the  Abolitionists  agreed  to  it?  Was  it  not  the 
solemn  compact,  the  condition  on  which  Lincoln  agreed 
to  Abolitionize  the  Old  Whigs,  that  he  should  be  sena- 
tor? Still,  Trumbull,  having  control  of  a  few  Aboli- 
tibnized  Democrats,  would  not  allow  them  all  to  vote 
for  Lincoln  on  any  one  ballot,  and  thus  kept  him  for 
some  time  within  one  or  two  votes  of  an  election,  until 
he  worried  out  Lincoln's  friends,  and  compelled  them  to 
drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull  in  violation  of  the  bargain. 
I  desire  to  read  you  a  piece  of  testimony  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  notoriously  public  facts  which  I  have  stated 
to  you.  Colonel  James  H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  is, 
and  for  twenty  years  has  been,  the  confidential  personal 
and  political  friend  and  manager  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
Matheny  is  this  very  day  the  candidate  of  the  Republi- 
can or  Abolition  party  for  Congress  against  the  gallant 
Major  Thomas  L.  Harris,  in  the  Springfield  district,  and 
is  making  speeches  for  Lincoln  and  against  me.     I  will 


i8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

read  you  the  testimony  of  Matheny  about  this  bargain 
between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  when  they  undertook  to 
Abolitionize  Whigs  and  Democrats  only  four  years  ago. 
Matheny,  being  mad  at  Trumbull  for  having  played  a 
Vankee  trick  on  Lincoln,  exposed  the  bargain  in  a  public 
speech  two  years  ago,  and  I  will  read  the  published  re- 
port of  that  speech,  the  correctness  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
will  not  deny : 

The  Whigs.  Abolitionists,  Know-nothings,  and  renegade 
Democrats  made  a  solemn  compact  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy  on  this  plan : 
First,  that  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trumbull 
to  Congress  and  thereby  carry  his  district  for  the  legis- 
lature, in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength  that  could  be 
obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats.  Second, 
that  when  the  legislature  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that 
body,  such  as  speaker,  clerks,  doorkeepers,  etc.,  would  be 
given  to  the  Abolitionists  ;  and,  third,  that  the  Whigs  were 
to  have  the  United  States  senator.  That,  accordingly, 
in  good  faith  Trumbull  was  elected  to  Congress,  and  his 
district  carried  for  the  legislature,  and  when  it  convened 
the  Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that  body,  and 
thus  far  the  "bond"  was  fairly  executed.  The  Whigs,  on 
their  part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to 
the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  be  fulfilled, 
the  other  parties  to  the  contract  having  already  secured 
to  themselves  all  that  was  called  for.  But,  in  the  most 
perfidious  manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln  ;  and 
the  mean,  low-lived,  sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by 
pledging  all  that  was  required  by  any  party,  in  thrusting 
Lincoln  aside  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from 
the  rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United 
States  Senate  ;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that  an  honest 
man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or  contracts 
with   rogues, 

Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  Matheny,  thought  that 
Lincoln  made  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspired  with 
such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  the  Abolitionists.  I  would 
like  to  know  whether  Lincoln  had  as  high  an  opinion  of 
Trumbull's  veracity  when  the  latter  agreed  to  support 
him  for  the  Senate,  and  then  cheated  him,  as  he  has 
now,  when  Trumbull  comes  forward  and  makes  charges 
against  me.  You  could  not  then  prove  Trumbull  an 
honest  man  either  by  Lincoln,  by  Matheny,  or  by  any  of 
Lincoln's  friends.  They  charged  everywhere  that  Trum- 
bull had  cheated  them  out  of  the  bargain,  and  Lincoln 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  19 

found,  sure  enough,  that  it  was  a  bad  bargain  to  contract 
and  conspire  with  rogues. 

And  now  I  will  explain  to  you  what  has  been  a  mys- 
tery all  over  the  State  and  Union,  the  reason  why 
Lincoln  was  nominated  for  the  United  States  Senate  by 
the  black  Republican  convention.  You  know  it  has 
never  been  usual  for  any  party,  or  any  convention,  to 
nominate  a  candidate  for  United  States  senator.  Prob- 
ably this  was  the  first  time  that  such  a  thing  was  ever 
done.  The  Black  Republican  convention  had  not  been 
called  for  that  purpose,  but  to  nominate  a  State  ticket, 
and  every  man  was  surprised  and  many  disgusted  when 
Lincoln  was  nominated.  Archie  Williams  thought  he 
was  entitled  to  it.  Browning  knew  that  he  deserved  it, 
Wentworth  was  certain  that  he  would  get  it.  Peck  had 
hopes,  Judd  felt  sure  that  he  was  the  man,  and  Palmer 
had  claims  and  had  made  arrangements  to  secure  it; 
but,  to  their  utter  amazement,  Lincoln  was  nominated  by 
the  convention,  and  not  only  that,  but  he  received  the 
i^omination  unanimously,  by  a  resolution  declaring  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  was  "the  first,  last,  and  only 
choice"  of  the  Republican  party.  How  did  this  occur? 
Why,  because  they  could  not  get  Lincoln's  friends  to 
make  another  bargain  with  "rogues,"  unless  the  whole 
party  would  come  up  as  one  man  and  pledge  their  honor 
that  they  would  stand  by  Lincoln  first,  last,  and  all  the 
time,  and  that  he  should  not  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy  this 
time,  as  he  was  by  Trumbull  before.  Thus,  by  passing 
this  resolution,  the  Abolitionists  are  all  for  him,  Lovejoy 
and  Farnsworth  are  canvassing  for  him,  Giddings  is 
ready  to  come  here  in  his  behalf,  and  the  negro  speakers 
are  already  on  the  stump  for  him,  and  he  is  sure  not  to 
be  cheated  this  time.  He  would  not  go  into  the  arrange- 
ment until  he  got  their  bond  for  it,  and  Trumbull  is 
compelled  now  to  take  the  stump,  get  up  false  charges 
against  me,  and  travel  all  over  the  State  to  try  and  elect 
Lincoln,  in  order  to  keep  Lincoln's  friends  quiet  about 
the  bargain  in  which  Trumbull  cheated  them  four  years 
ago.  You  see  now  why  it  is  that  Lincoln  and  Trumbull 
are  so  mighty  fond  of  each  other.  They  have  entered 
into  a  conspiracy  to  break  me  down  by  these  assaults  on 
my  public  character,  in  order  to  draw  my  attention  from 
a  fair  exposure  of  the  mode  in  which  they  attempted  to 
Abolitionize  the  Old  Whig  and  the  old  Democratic  par- 
ties and  lead  them  captive  into  the  Abolition  camp.     Do 


20  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

you  not  all  remember  that  Lincoln  went  around  here 
four  years  ago  making  speeches  to  you,  and  telling  that 
you  should  all  go  for  the  Abolition  ticket,  and  swearing 
that  he  was  as  good  a  Whig  as  he  ever  was ;  and  that 
Trumbull  went  all  over  the  State  making  pledges  to  the 
old  Democrats,  and  trying  to  coax  them  into  the  Aboli- 
tion camp,  swearing  by  his  Maker,  with  the  uplifted 
hand,  that  he  was  still  a  Democrat,  always  intended  to 
be,  and  that  never  would  he  desert  the  Democratic 
party?  He  got  your  votes  to  elect  an  Abolition  legisla- 
ture, which  passed  Abolition  resolutions,  attempted  to 
pass  Abolition  laws,  and  sustained  Abolitionists  for 
office.  State  and  national.  Now,  the  same  game  is  at- 
tempted to  be  played  over  again.  Then  Lincoln  and 
Trumbull  made  captives  of  the  Old  Whigs  and  old  Dem- 
ocrats and  carried  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  where 
Father  Giddings,  the  high  priest  of  Abolitionism,  re- 
ceived and  christened  them  in  the  dark  cause  just  as 
fast  as  they  were  brought  in.  Giddings  found  the  con- 
verts so  numerous  that  he  had  to  have  assistance,  and 
he  sent  for  John  P.  Hale,  N.  P.  Banks,  Chase,  and  other 
Abolitionists,  and  they  came  on,  and  with  Lovejoy  and 
Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  helped  to  baptise  these  new 
converts  as  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  Breese,  Reynolds,  and 
Dougherty  could  capture  them  and  bring  them  within 
the  Abolition  clutch.  Gentlemen,  they  are  nov/  around 
making  the  same  kind  of  speeches.  Trumbull  was  down 
in  Monroe  County  the  other  day  assailing  me,  and  mak- 
ing a  speech  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  and  I  will  show  you 
under  what  notice  his  meeting  was  called.  You  see 
these  people  are  Black  Republicans  or  Abolitionists  up 
north,  while  at  Springfield  to-day  they  dare  not  call  their 
convention  "Republican,"  but  are  obliged  to  say  "a  con- 
vention of  all  men  opposed  to  the  Democratic  party," 
and  in  Monroe  County  and  lower  Egypt  Trumbull  ad- 
vertises their  meetings  as  follows : 


A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place  at 
Waterloo,  on  Monday,  September  12th  inst.,  whereat  Hon. 
Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  Jehu  Baker,  and  others,  will  ad- 
dress the  people  upon  the  different  political  topics  of  the 
day.  Members  of  all  parties  are  cordially  invited  to  be 
present,   and  hear  and   determine  for  themselves. 

The  Free  Democracy. 
September  9,  1858. 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  21 

Did  you  ever  before  hear  of  this  new  party  called  the 
"Free  Democracy"  ? 

What  object  have  these  Black  Republicans  in  chang- 
ing their  name  in  every  county?  They  have  one  name 
in  the  north,  another  in  the  center,  and  another  in  the 
south.  When  I  used  to  practise  law  before  my  distin- 
guished judicial  friend  whom  I  recognize  in  the  crowd 
before  me,  if  a  man  was  charged  with  horee-stealing, 
and  the  proof  showed  that  he  went  by  one  name  in 
Stephenson  County,  another  in  Sangamon,  a  third  in 
Monroe,  and  a  fourth  in  Randolph,  we  thought  that  the 
fact  of  his  changing  his  nrme  so  often  to  avoid  detec- 
tion was  pretty  strong  evidence  of  his  guilt.  I  would 
like  to  know  why  it  is  that  this  great  Free-soil  Abolition 
party  is  not  willing  to  avow  the  same  name  in  all  parts 
of  the  State?  If  this  party  believes  that  its  course  is 
just,  why  does  it  not  avow  the  same  principles  in  the 
north  and  in  the  south,  in  the  east  and  in  the  west, 
wherever  the  American  flag  waves  over  American  soil? 
[A  voice:  "The  party  does  not  call  itself  Black  Repuh' 
lican  in  the  north."]  Sir,  if  you  will  get  a  copy  of  the 
paper  published  at  Waukegan,  fifty  miles  from  Chicago, 
which  advocates  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  has  his 
name  flying  at  its  masthead,  3'ou  will  find  that  it  declares 
that  "this  paper  is  devoted  to  the  cause"  of  Black  Re- 
publicanism. I  had  a  copy  of  it,  and  intended  to  bring 
it  down  here  into  Egypt  to  let  you  see  what  name  the 
party  rallied  under  up  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State, 
and  to  convince  you  that  their  principles  are  as  different 
in  the  two  sections  of  the  State  as  is  their  name.  I  am 
sorry  I  have  mislaid  it  and  have  not  got  it  here.  Their 
principles  in  the  north  are  jet-black,  in  the  center  they 
are  in  color  a  decent  mulatto,  and  in  lower  Egypt  they 
are  almost  white.  Why,  I  admired  many  of  the  white 
sentiments  contained  in  Lincoln's  speech  at  Jonesboro, 
and  could  not  help  but  contrast  them  with  the  speeches 
of  the  same  distinguished  orator  made  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  State.  Down  here  he  denies  that  the  Black 
Republican  party  is  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any 
more  slave  States,  under  any  circumstances,  and  says 
that  they  are  willing  to  allow  the  people  of  each  State, 
when  it  wants  to  come  into  the  Union,  to  do  just  as  it 
pleases  on  the  question  of  slavery.  In  the  north  you 
find  Lovejoy,  their  candidate  for  Congress  in  the 
Bloomington  district ;  Farnsworth,  their  candidate  in  the 


22  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

Chicago  district ;  and  Washburne,  their  candidate  in  the 
Galena  district,  all  declaring  that  never  will  they  con- 
sent under  any  circumstances  to  admit  another  slave 
State,  even  if  the  people  want  it.  Thus,  while  they 
avow  one  set  of  principles  up  there,  they  avow  another 
and  entirely  different  set  down  here.  And  here  let  me 
recall  to  Mr.  Lincoln  the  scriptural  quotation  which  he 
has  applied  to  the  Federal  Government,  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  and  ask  him  how 
does  he  expect  this  Abolition  party  to  stand  when  in  one 
half  of  the  State  it  advocates  a  set  of  principles  which  it 
has  repudiated  in  the  other  half? 

I  am  told  that  I  have  but  eight  minutes  more.  I 
would  like  to  talk  to  you  an  hour  and  a  half  longer,  but 
I  will  make  the  best  use  I  can  of  the  remaining  eight 
minutes.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  in  his  first  remarks  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  the  social  and  political  equality  of 
the  negro  with  the  white  man.  Everywhere  up  north 
he  has  declared  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the  social 
and  political  equality  of  the  negro,  but  he  would  not  say 
whether  or  not  he  was  opposed  to  negroes  voting  and 
negro  citizenship.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  for  or 
against  negro  citizenship?  He  declared  his  utter  op- 
position to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  advanced  as  a 
reason  that  the  court  had  decided  that  it  was  not  possi- 
ble for  a  negro  to  be  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  If  he  is  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  for  that  reason,  he  must  be  in  favor  of  confer- 
ring the  right  and  privilege  of  citizenship  upon  the 
negro.  I  have  been  trying  to  get  an  answer  from  him 
on  that  point  but  I  have  never  yet  obtained  one,  and  I 
will  show  you  why.  In  every  speech  he  made  in  the 
north  he  quoted  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to 
prove  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  insisted  that 
the  phrase  "all  men"  included  the  negro  as  well  as  the 
white  man,  and  that  the  equality  rested  upon  divine  law. 
Here  is  what  he  said  on  that  point : 


I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon 
principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will  it  stop  ? 
If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not 
another  say  it  does  not  mean  some  other  man  ?  If  that 
Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the  statute-book 
in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out. 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON  23 

Lincoln  maintains  there  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence asserts  that  the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white 
man,  and  that  under  divine  law ;  and  if  he  believes  so 
it  was  rational  for  him  to  advocate  negro  citizenship, 
which,  when  allowed,  puts  the  negro  on  an  equality 
under  the  law.  I  say  to  you  in  all  frankness,  gentlemen, 
that  in  my  opinion  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be, 
and  ought  not  to  be,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  will  not  even  qualify  my  opinion  to 
meet  the  declaration  of  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  "that  a  negro  de- 
scended from  African  parents,  who  was  imported  into 
this  country  as  a  slave,  is  not  a  citizen,  and  cannot  be." 
I  say  that  this  government  was  established  on  the  white 
basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  never  should 
be  administered  by  any  except  white  men.  I  declare 
that  a  negro  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  whether  his  par- 
ents were  imported  into  this  country  as  slaves  or  not, 
or  whether  or  not  he  was  born  here.  It  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  place  a  negro's  parents  were  born,  or 
whether  they  were  slaves  or  not,  but  upon  the  fact  that 
he  is  a  negro,  belonging  to  a  race  incapable  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  for  that  reason  ought  not  to  be  on  an 
equality  with  white  men. 

My  friends,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  time  to  pur- 
sue this  argument  further,  as  I  might  have  done  but 
for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  compelled  me  to  occupy 
a  portion  of  my  time  in  repelling  those  gross  slanders 
and  falsehoods  that  Trumbull  has  invented  against  me 
and  put  in  circulation.  In  conclusion,  let  me  ask  you 
why  should  this  government  be  divided  by  a  geo- 
graphical line — arraying  all  men  North  in  one  great 
hostile  party  against  all  men  South?  Mr,  Lincoln  tells 
you,  in  his  speech  at  Springfield,  that  a  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand;  that  this  government, 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  cannot  endure 
permanently;  that  they  must  either  be  all  free  or  all 
slave,  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Why  cannot  this 
government  endure  divided  into  free  States  and  slave 
States,  as  our  fathers  made  it? 

When  this  government  was  established  by  Washing- 
ton, Jefferson,  Madison,  Jay,  Hamilton,  Franklin,  and 
the  other  sages  and  patriots  of  that  day,  it  was  com- 
posed of  free  States  and  slave  States,  bound  together 


24  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Sept.  i8 

by  one  common  Constitution.  We  have  existed  and 
prospered  from  that  day  to  this  thus  divided,  and  have 
increased  with  a  rapidity  never  before  equaled  in 
weakh,  the  extension  of  territory,  and  all  the  elements 
of  power  and  greatness,  until  we  have  become  the 
first  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Why  can  we  not 
thus  continue  to  prosper?  We  can  if  we  will  live  up 
to  and  execute  the  government  upon  those  principles 
upon  which  our  fathers  established  it.  During  the 
whole  period  of  our  existence  Divine  Providence  has 
smiled  upon  us,  and  showered  upon  our  nation  richer 
and  more  abundant  blessings  than  have  ever  been  con- 
ferred upon  any  other. 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder. 

Fellow-citizens:  It  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  a  half-hour  answer  to  a  speech  of  an 
hour  and  a  half  can  be  but  a  very  hurried  one. 
I  shall  only  be  able  to  touch  upon  a  few  of  the 
points  suggested  by  Judge  Douglas,  and  give 
them  a  brief  attention,  while  I  shall  have  to 
totally  omit  others  for  the  want  of  time. 

Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  you  that  he  has  not 
been  able  to  get  from  me  an  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion whether  I  am  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship. 
So  far  as  I  know,  the  judge  never  asked  me  the 
question  before.  He  shall  have  no  occasion  to 
ever  ask  it  again,  for  I  tell  him  very  frankly  that 
I  am  not  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship.  This 
furnishes  me  an  occasion  for  saying  a  few  words 
upon  the  subject.  I  mentioned  in  a  certain 
speech  of  mine,  which  has  been  printed,  that  the 
Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  a  negro  could 
not  possibly  be  made  a  citizen,  and  without  say- 
ing what  was  my  ground  of  complaint  in  regard 
to  that,  or  whether  I  had  any  ground  of  com- 
plaint, Judge  Douglas  has  from  that  thing  man- 


i858]  AT  CHARLESTON  25 

ufactured  nearly  everything  that  he  ever  says 
about  my  disposition  to  produce  an  equality  be- 
tween the  negroes  and  the  white  people.  If  any 
one  will  read  my  speech,  he  will  find  I  mentioned 
that  as  one  of  the  points  decided  in  the  course  of 
the  Supreme  Court  opinions,  but  I  did  not  state 
wdiat  objection  I  had  to  it.  But  Judge  Douglas 
tells  the  people  what  my  objection  was  when  I 
did  not  tell  them  myself.  Now  my  opinion  is 
that  the  different  States  have  the  power  to  make 
a  negro  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  if  they  choose.  The  Dred  Scott 
decision  decides  that  they  have  not  that  power. 
If  the  State  of  Illinois  had  that  power,  I  should 
be  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  it.  That  is  all  I 
have  to  say  about  it. 

Judge  Douglas  has  told  me  that  he  heard 
my  speeches  north  and  my  speeches  south — that 
he  had  heard  me  at  Ottawa  and  at  Freeport  in 
the  north,  and  recently  at  Jonesboro  in  the  south, 
and  there  was  a  very  different  cast  of  sentiment 
in  the  speeches  made  at  the  different  points.  I 
will  not  charge  upon  Judge  Douglas  that  he  wil- 
fully misrepresents  me,  but  I  call  upon  every 
fair-minded  man  to  take  these  speeches  and  read 
them,  and  I  dare  him  to  point  out  any  difference 
between  my  speeches  north  and  south.  While  I 
am  here  perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  word,  if  I 
have  the  time,  in  regard  to  the  latter 
portion  of  the  judge's  speech,  which  was 
a  sort  of  declamation  in  reference  to  my  hav- 
ing said  I  entertained  the  belief  that  this  govern- 
ment would  not  endure  half  slave  and  half 
free.  I  have  said  so,  and  I  did  not  say  it  without 
what  seemed  to  me  to  be  good  reasons.  It  per- 
haps would  require  more  time  than  I  have  now  to 


'26  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept  i8 

set  forth  these  reasons  in  detail ;  but  let  me  ask 
you  a  few  questions.  Have  we  ever  had  any 
peace  on  this  slavery  question?  When  are  we 
to  have  peace  upon  it  if  it  is  kept  in  the  position 
it  now  occupies  ?  How  are  we  ever  to  have  peace 
upon  it?  That  is  an  important  question.  To  be 
sure,  if  we  will  all  stop  and  allow  Judge  Douglas 
and  his  friends  to  march  on  in  their  present 
career  until  they  plant  the  institution  all  over 
the  nation,  here  and  wherever  else  our  flag 
waves,  and  we  acquiesce  in  it,  there  will  be  peace. 
But  let  me  ask  Judge  Douglas  how  he  is  going  to 
get  the  people  to  do  that?  They  have  been 
wTangling  over  this  question  for  at  least  forty 
years.  This  was  the  cause  of  the  agitation  re- 
sulting in  the  Missouri  compromise;  this  pro- 
duced the  troubles  at  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
in  the  acquisition  of  the  territory  acquired  in  the 
Mexican  war.  Again  this  was  the  trouble  which 
w^as  quieted  by  the  compromise  of  1850.  when 
it  was  settled  "forever,"  as  both  the  great  politi- 
cal parties  declared  in  their  national  conventions. 
That  ''forever"  turned  out  to  be  just  four  years, 
when  Judge  Douglas  himself  reopened  it. 

When  is  it  likely  to  come  to  an  end  ?  He  intro- 
duced the  Nebraska  bill  in  1854  to  put  another 
end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  He  promised  that 
it  would  finish  it  all  up  immediately,  and  he  has 
never  made  a  speech  since  until  he  got  into  a 
quarrel  with  the  President  about  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  in  which  he  has  not  declared  that 
we  are  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation. 
But  in  one  speech,  I  think  last  winter,  he  did 
say  that  he  didn't  quite  see  when  the  end  of  the 
slavery  agitation  would  come.  Now  he  tells  us 
again  that  it  is  all  over,  and  the  people  of  Kan- 


1858]  AT  CHAP.lESTOy  27 

sas  have  voted  down  the  Lecompton  constitution. 
How  is  it  over?     That  was  only  one  of  the  at- 
tempts at  putting  an  end  to  the  slaver}-  agitation 
— one  of  these  "final  settlements.''    Is  Kansas  in 
the  Union?    Has  she  formed  a  constitution  that 
she  is  likely  to  come  in  under  ?    Is  not  the  slavery 
agitation  still  an  open  question  in  that  Territory-? 
Has  the  voting  down  of  t'.it  constitution  put  an 
end  to  all  the  trouble?     Is  that  more  likely  to 
settle  it  than  ever\-  one  of  these  pre^-ious  attempts 
to  settle  the  slaver}-  agitation?    Xow,  at  this  day 
in  the  histor\-  of  the  world  we  can  no  more  fore- 
tell where  the  end  of  this  slavery  agitation  will 
be  than  we  can  see  the  end  of  the  world  itself. 
The  Xebraska-Kansas  bill  was  introduced  four 
vears  and  a  half  asro.  and  if  the  a2:itation  is  ever 
to  come  to  an  end,  we  may  say  we  are  four  years 
and  a  half  nearer  the  end.     So.  too.  we  can  say 
we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  the  end  of 
the  world :  and  we  can  just  as  clearly  see  the  end 
of  the  world  as  we  can  see  the  end  of  this  agita- 
tion.   The  Kansas  settlement  did  not  conclude  it. 
If  Kansas  should  sink  to-day,  and  leave  a  great 
vacant  space  in  the  earth's  surface,  this  vexed 
question  would  still  be  among  us.     I  say.  then, 
there  is  no  way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery 
agitation  amonorst  us  but  to  put  it  back  upon  the 
basis  where  our  fathers  placed  it.  no  way  but  to 
keep  it  out  of  our  new  Territories — to  restrict  it 
forever  to  the  old  States  where  it  now  exists. 
Then  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it 
is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.     That  is 
one  way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slaver}-  agita- 
tion. 

The  other  way  is  for  us  to  surrender  and  let 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have  their  way 


28  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  i8 

and  plant  slavery  over  all  the  States — cease 
speaking  of  it  as  in  any  way  a  wrong — regard 
slavery  as  one  of  the  common  matters  of  prop- 
erty, and  speak  of  negroes  as  we  do  of  our  horses 
and  cattle.  But  while  it  drives  on  in  its  state  of 
progress  as  it  is  now  driving,  and  as  it  has  driven 
for  the  last  five  years,  I  have  ventured  the  opin- 
ion, and  I  say  to-day,  that  we  will  have  no  end 
to  the  slavery  agitation  until  it  takes  one  turn  or 
the  other.  I  do  not  mean  that  when  it  takes  a 
turn  toward  ultimate  extinction  it  will  be  in  a 
day,  nor  in  a  year,  nor  in  two  years.  I  do  not 
suppose  that  in  the  most  peaceful  way  ultimate 
extinction  would  occur  in  less  than  a  hundred 
years  at  least;  but  that  it  will  occur  in  the  best 
way  for  both  races,  in  God's  own  good  time,  I 
have  no  doubt.  But,  my  friends,  I  have  used  up 
more  of  my  time  than  I  intended  on  this  point. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  Trumbull 
and  myself  having  made  a  bargain  to  sell  out  the 
entire  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  in  1854, 
Judge  Douglas  brings  forward  no  evidence  to 
sustain  his  charge,  except  the  speech  Matheny  is 
said  to  have  made  in  1856,  in  which  he  told  a 
cock-and-bull  story  of  that  sort,  upon  the  same 
moral  principles  that  Judge  Douglas  tells  it  here 
to-day.  This  is  the  simple  truth.  I  do  not  care 
greatly  for  the  story,  but  this  is  the  truth  of  it, 
and  I  have  twice  told  Judge  Douglas  to  his  face, 
that  from  beginning  to  end  there  is  not  one  word 
of  truth  in  it.  I  have  called  upon  him  for  the 
proof,  and  he  does  not  at  all  meet  me  as  Trum- 
bull met  him  upon  that  of  which  we  were  just 
talking,  by  producing  the  record.  He  didn't 
bring  the  record,  because  there  was  no  record  for 
him  to  bring.     When  he  asks  if  I  am  ready  to 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON 


29 


indorse  Trnmbuirs  veracity  after  he  has  broken 
a  bargain  with  me,  I  reply  that  if  Trumbull  had 
broken  a  bargain  with  me,  I  would  not  be  likely 
to  indorse  his  veracity;  but  I  am  ready  to  in- 
dorse his  veracity  because  neither  in  that  thing, 
nor  in  any  other,  in  all  the  years  that  I  have 
known  Lyman  Trumbull,  have  I  known  him  to 
fail  of  his  word  or  tell  a  falsehood,  large  or 
small.  It  is  for  that  reason  that  I  indorse  Ly- 
man Trumbull. 

Mr.  James  Brown  [Douglas  postmaster]  : 
What  does  Ford's  history  say  about  him? 

Mr.  Lincoln :  Some  gentleman  asks  me  what 
Ford's  history  says  about  him.  My  own  recol- 
lection is,  that  Ford  speaks  of  Trumbull  in  very 
disrespectful  terms  in  several  portions  of  his 
book,  and  that  he  talks  a  great  deal  worse  of 
Judge  Douglas.  I  refer  you,  sir,  to  the  history 
for  examination. 

Judge  Douglas  complains  at  considerable 
length  about  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  Trum- 
bull and  myself  to  attack  him  personally.  I  want 
to  attend  to  that  suggestion  for  a  moment.  I 
don't  want  to  be  unjustly  accused  of  dealing  il- 
liberally or  unfairly  with  an  adversary,  either  in 
court,  or  in  a  political  canvass,  or  anywhere  else. 
I  would  despise  myself  if  I  supposed  myself 
ready  to  deal  less  liberally  with  an  adversary 
than  I  was  willing  to  be  treated  myself.  Judge 
Douglas,  in  a  general  way,  without  putting  it  in 
a  direct  shape,  revives  the  old  charge  against  me 
in  reference  to  the  Mexican  war.  He  does  not 
take  the  responsibility  of  putting  it  in  a  very 
definite  form,  but  makes  a  general  reference  to 
it.  That  charge  is  more  than  ten  years  old.  He 
complains  of  Trumbull  and  myself,  because  he 


30  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  :8 

says  we  bring  charges  against  him  one  or  two 
years  old.  He  knows,  too,  that  in  regard  to  the 
Mexican  war  story,  the  more  respectable  papers 
of  his  own  party  throughout  the  State  have  been 
compelled  to  take  it  back  and  acknowledge  that 
it  was  a  lie. 

[Here  Mr.  Lincoln  turned  to  the  crozvd  on  the 
platform,  and  selecting  Hon.  Orlando  B.  Ficklin, 
led  him  forward  and  said:] 

I  do  not  mean  to  do  anything  with  Mr.  Ficklin, 
except  to  present  his  face  and  tell  you  that  he 
personally  knows  it  to  be  a  lie !  He  was  a  mem- 
ber of  Congress  at  the  only  time  I  was  in  Con- 
gress, and  he  knows  that  whenever  there  was  an 
attempt  to  procure  a  vote  of  mine  which  would 
indorse  the  origin  and  justice  of  the  war,  I  re- 
fused to  give  such  indorsement,  and  voted 
against  it ;  but  I  never  voted  against  the  supplies 
for  the  army,  and  he  knows,  as  well  as  Judge 
Douglas,  that  whenever  a  dollar  was  asked  by 
way  of  compensation  or  otherwise,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  soldiers,  I  gave  all  the  votes  that  Ficklin 
or  Douglas  did,  and  perhaps  more. 

Mr.  Ficklin :  My  friends,  I  wish  to  say  this  in 
reference  to  the  matter.  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself 
are  just  as  good  personal  friends  as  Judge  Doug- 
las and  myself.  In  reference  to  this  Mexican 
war,  my  recollection  is  that  when  Ashmun's  reso- 
lution [amendment]  was  offered  by  Mr.  Ash- 
mun  of  Massachusetts,  in  which  he  declared  that 
the  Mexican  war  was  unnecessarily  and  unconsti- 
tutionally commenced  by  the  President, — my 
recollection  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  for  that 
resolution. 

Mr.  Lincoln :  That  is  the  truth.  Now  you  all 
remember  that  was  a  resolution  censuring  the 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  31 

President  for  the  manner  in  which  the  war  was 
begun.  You  know  they  have  charged  that  I 
voted  against  the  suppHes,  by  which  I  starved 
the  soldiers  who  were  out  fighting  the  battles  of 
their  country.  I  say  that  Ficklin  knows  it  is 
false.  When  that  charge  was  brought  forward 
by  the  Chicago  Times,  the  Springfield  Register 
[Douglas  organ]  reminded  the  Times  that  the 
charge  really  applied  to  John  Henry ;  and  I  do 
know  that  John  Henry  is  now  making  speeches 
and  fiercely  battling  for  Judge  Douglas.  If  the 
judge  now  says  that  he  offers  this  as  a  sort  of 
set-off  to  what  I  said  to-day  in  reference  to 
Trumbull's  charge,  then  I  remind  him  that  he 
made  this  charge  before  I  said  a  word  about 
Trumbull's.  He  brought  this  forward  at  Ottawa, 
the  first  time  we  met  face  to  face ;  and  in  the 
opening  speech  that  Judge  Douglas  made,  he  at- 
tacked me  in  regard  to  a  matter  ten  years  old. 
Isn't  he  a  pretty  mian  to  be  whining  about  people 
making  charges  against  him  only  two  years  old ! 
The  judge  thinks  it  is  altogether  wrong  that 
I  should  have  dwelt  upon  this  charge  of  Trum- 
bull's at  all.  I  gave  the  apology  for  doing  so 
in  my  opening  speech.  Perhaps  it  didn't  fix  your 
attention.  I  said  that  when  Judge  Douglas  was 
speaking  at  places  where  I  spoke  on  the  succeed- 
ing day,  he  used  very  harsh  language  about  this 
charge.  Two  or  three  times  afterward  I  said  I 
had  confidence  in  Judge  Trumbull's  veracity  and 
intelligence ;  and  my  own  opinion  was,  from  what 
I  knew  of  the  character  of  Judge  Trumbull,  that 
he  would  vindicate  his  position,  and  prove  what- 
ever he  had  stated  to  be  true.  This  I  repeated 
two  or  three  times ;  and  then  I  dropped  it,  with- 
out   saying   anything   more   on   the    subject    for 


32  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       rSept.  18 

weeks — perhaps  a  month.  I  passed  it  by  without 
noticing  it  at  all  till  I  found  at  Jacksonville  that 
Judge  Douglas,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power, 
is  not  willing  to  answer  Trumbull  and  let  me 
alone;  but  he  comes  out  there  and  uses  this  lan- 
guage :  "He  should  not  hereafter  occupy  his 
time  in  refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull, 
but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed  the  character 
of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him 
[Lincoln]  responsible  for  the  slanders."  What 
was  Lincoln  to  do?  Did  he  not  do  right,  when 
he  had  the  fit  opportunity  of  meeting  Judge 
Douglas  here,  to  tell  him  he  was  ready  for  the 
responsibility?  I  ask  a  candid  audience  whether 
in  doing  thus  Judge  Douglas  was  not  the  assail- 
ant rather  than  I  ?  Here  I  meet  him  face  to  face, 
and  say  I  am  ready  to  take  the  responsibility  so 
far  as  it  rests  on  me. 

Having  done  so,  I  ask  the  attention  of  this 
audience  to  the  question  whether  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  sustaining  the  charge,  and  whether 
Judge  Douglas  has  at  all  succeeded  in  rebutting 
it.  You  all  heard  me  call  upon  him  to  say  which 
of  these  pieces  of  evidence  was  a  forgery.  Does 
he  say  that  what  I  present  here  as  a  copy  of  the 
original  Toombs  bill  is  a  forgery?  Does  he  say 
that  what  I  present  as  a  copy  of  the  bill  reported 
by  himself  is  a  forgery  ?  Or  what  is  presented  as 
a  transcript  from  the  Globe,  of  the  quotations 
from  Bigler's  speech,  is  a  forgery?  Does  he  say 
the  quotations  from  his  own  speech  are  forger- 
ies ?  Does  he  say  this  transcript  from  Trumbull's 
speech  is  a  forgery?  Y'He  didnt  deny  one  of 
them."]  I  would  then  like  to  know  how  it  comes 
about  that  when  each  piece  of  a  story  is  true,  the 
whole   story  turns   out   false?     I  take  it  these 


1858]  AT  CHARLESTON 


3$ 


people  have  some  sense ;  they  see  plainly  that 
Judge  Douglas  is  playing  cuttlefish,  a  small 
species  of  fish  that  has  no  mode  of  defending  it- 
self when  pursued  except  by  throwing  out  a  black 
fluid,  which  makes  the  water  so  dark  the  enemy 
cannot  see  it,  and  thus  it  escapes.  Is  not  the 
judge  playing  the  cuttlefish? 

Now  I  would  ask  very  special  attention  to  the 
consideration  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  at  Jack- 
sonville ;  and  when  you  shall  read  his  speech  of 
to-day,  I  ask  you  to  watch  closely  and  see  which 
of  these  pieces  of  testimony,  every  one  of  which 
he  says  is  a  forgery,  he  has  shown  to  be  such. 
Not  one  of  them  has  he  shown  to  be  a  forgery. 
Then  I  ask  the  original  question,  if  each  of  the 
pieces  of  testimony  is  true,  how  is  it  possible  that 
the  whole  is  a  falsehood  ? 

In  regard  to  Trumbull's  charge  that  he  [Doug- 
las] inserted  a  provision  into  the  bill  to  prevent 
the  constitution  being  submitted  to  the  people, 
what  was  his  answer?  He  comes  here  and  reads 
from  the  Congressional  Globe  to  show  that  on 
his  motion  that  provision  was  struck  out  of  the 
bill.  Why,  Trumbull  has  not  said  it  was  not 
stricken  out,  but  Trumbull  says  he  [Douglas] 
put  it  in,  and  it  is  no  answer  to  the  charge  to  say 
he  afterward  took  it  out.  Both  are  perhaps  true. 
It  was  in  regard  to  that  thing  precisely  that  I 
told  him  he  had  dropped  the  cub.  Trumbull 
shows  you  by  his  introducing  the  bill  that  it  was 
his  cub.  It  is  no  answer  to  that  assertion  to  call 
Trumbull  a  liar  merely  because  he  did  not 
specially  say  that  Douglas  struck  it  out.  Sup- 
pose that  were  the  case,  does  it  answer  Trum- 
bull? I  assert  that  you  [pointing  to  an  individu- 
al] are  here  to-day,  and  you  undertake  to  prove 


34  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS       [Sept.  iS 

me  a  liar  by  showing-  that  you  were  in  Mattoon 
yesterday.  I  say  that  you  took  your  hat  off  your 
head,  and  you  prove  me  a  Har  by  putting  it  on 
your  head.  That  is  the  whole  force  of  Douglas's 
argument. 

Now,   I   want  to   come   back  to   my  original 
question.     Trumbull    says    that   Judge    Douglas 
had  a  bill  with  a  provision  in  it  for  submitting 
a  constitution  to  be  made  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
of  Kansas.    Does  Judge  Douglas  deny  that  fact? 
Does  he  deny  that  the  provision  which  Trumbull 
reads  was  put  in  that  bill  ?    Then  Trumbull  says 
he  struck  it  out.     Does  he  dare  to  deny  that? 
He  does  not,  and  I  have  the  right  to  repeat  the 
question — why  Judge  Douglas  took  it  out  ?    Big-- 
ler  has  said  there  was  a  combination  of  certain 
senators,  among-  Vvdiom  he  did  not  include  Judge 
Douglas,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  the  Kansas 
bill  should  have  a  clause  in  it  not  to  have  the 
constitution  formed  under  it  submitted  to  a  vote 
of  the  people.    He  did  not  say  that  Douglas  was 
among  them,  but  we  prove  by  another  source  that 
about  the  same  time  Douglas  comes  into  the  Sen- 
ate with  that  provision  stricken  out  of  the  bill. 
Although  Bigler  cannot  say  they  were  all  work- 
ing in  concert,  yet  it  looks  very  much  as  if  the 
thing  was  agreed  upon  and  done  with  a  mutual 
understanding  after  the  conference;  and  while 
we  do  not  know  that  it  was  absolutely  so,  yet  it 
looks  so  probable  that  we  have  a  right  to  call 
upon  the  man  who  knows  the  true  reason  why  it 
was  done,  to  tell  what  the  true  reason  was.    When 
he  will  not  tell  what  the  true  reason  was.  he  stands 
in  the  attitude  of  an  accused  thief  who  has  stolen 
goods  in  his  possession,  and  when  called  to  ac- 
count refuses  to  tell  where  he  got  them.     Not 


i8s8]  AT  CHARLESTON  35 

only  is  this  the  evidence,  but  when  he  comes  in 
with  the  bill  having  the  provision  stricken  out, 
he  tells  us  in  a  speech,  not  then,  but  since,  that 
these  alterations  and  modifications  in  the  bill  had 
been  made  by  him,  in  consultation  with  Toombs, 
the  originator  of  the  bill.  He  tells  us  the  same 
to-day.  He  says  there  were  certain  modifica- 
tions made  in  the  bill  in  committee  that  he  did 
not  vote  for.  I  ask  you  to  remember  while  cer- 
tain amendments  were  made  which  he  disap- 
proved of,  but  which  a  majority  of  the  commit- 
tee voted  in,  he  has  himself  told  us  that  in  this 
particular  the  alterations  and  modifications  were 
made  by  him  upon  consultation  with  Toombs. 
We  have  his  own  vv^ord  that  these  alterations 
were  made  by  him  and  not  by  the  committee. 

Now,  I  ask  what  is  the  reason  Judge  Douglas 
is  so  chary  about  coming  to  the  exact  question? 
What  is  the  reason  he  will  not  tell  you  anything 
about  how  it  was  made,  by  whom  it  was  made, 
or  that  he  remembers  it  being  made  at  all  ?  Why 
does  he  stand  playing  upon  the  meaning  of 
words,  and  quibbling  around  the  edges  of  the 
evidence?  If  he  can  explain  all  this,  but  leaves 
it  unexplained,  I  have  a  right  to  infer  that  Judge 
Douglas  understood  it  was  the  purpose  of  his 
party,  in  engineering  that  bill  through,  to  make 
a  constitution,  and  have  Kansas  come  into  the 
Union  with  that  constitution,  without  it  being 
submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  If  he  will  ex- 
plain his  action  on  this  question,  by  giving  a  bet- 
ter reason  for  the  facts  that  happened  than  he 
has  done,  it  will  be  satisfactory.  But  until  he 
does  that — until  he  gives  a  better  or  more  plau- 
sible reason  than  he  has  offered  against  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case — I  suggest  to  him  it  will  not 


36  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

avail  him  at  all  that  he  swells  himself  up,  takes 
on  dignity,  and  calls  people  liars.  Why,  sir, 
there  is  not  a  word  in  Trumbull's  speech  that  de- 
pends on  Trumbull's  veracity  at  all.  He  has  only 
arrayed  the  evidence  and  told  you  what  follows 
as  a  matter  of  reasoning.  There  is  not  a  state- 
ment in  the  whole  speech  that  depends  on  Trum- 
bull's word.  If  you  have  ever  studied  geometry, 
you  remember  that  by  a  course  of  reasoning 
Euclid  proves  that  all  the  angles  in  a  triangle  are 
equal  to  the  two  right  angles.  Euclid  has  shown 
you  how  to  work  it  out.  Now,  if  you  undertake 
to  disprove  that  proposition,  and  to  show  that  it 
is  erroneous,  would  you  prove  it  to  be  false  by 
calling  Euclid  a  liar  ?  They  tell  me  that  my  time 
is  out,  and  therefore  I  close. 

Fifth  Joint  Debate,  at  Galesburg. 

October  7,  1858. 
Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Four  years  ago  I  appeared  be- 
fore the  people  of  Knox  County  for  the  purpose  of 
defending  my  political  action  upon  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  and  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill.  Those  of  you  before  me  who  were  present 
then  will  remember  that  I  vindicated  myself  for  sup- 
porting those  two  measures  by  the  fact  that  they  rested 
upon  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  the  people 
of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union  have 
the  right,  and  ought  to  be  permitted  to  exercise  the 
right,  of  regulating  their  own  domestic  concerns  in 
their  own  way,  subject  to  no  other  limitation  or  restric- 
tion than  that  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  imposes  upon  them.  I  then  called  upon  the 
people  of  Illinois  to  decide  whether  that  principle  of 
self-government  was  right  or  wrong.  If  it  was  and  is 
right,    then   the   compromise   measures   of    1850   were 


iSsS]  AT  GALES  BURG  37 

right,  and,  consequently,  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill,  based  upon  the  same  principle,  must  necessarily 
have  been  right. 

The  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  declared,  in  so  many 
words,  that  it  was  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory, 
nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  do- 
mestic institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  For  the  last 
four  years  I  have  devoted  all  my  energies,  in  private 
and  public,  to  cgmmend  that  principle  to  the  American 
people.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  in  condemnation 
or  support  of  my  political  course,  I  apprehend  that 
no  honest  man  will  doubt  the  fidelity  with  which  under 
all  circumstances  I  have  stood  by  it. 

During  the  last  year  a  question  arose  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  whether  or  not  that  principle 
would  be  violated  by  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the 
Union  under  the  Lecompton  constitution.  In  my 
opinion,  the  attempt  to  force  Kansas  in  under  that 
constitution  was  a  gross  violation  of  the  principle 
enunciated  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854,  and  therefore  I 
led  ofT  in  the  fight  against  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
and  conducted  it  until  the  effort  to  carry  that  constitu- 
tion through  Congress  was  abandoned.  And  I  can 
appeal  to  all  men,  friends  and  foes.  Democrats  and 
Republicans,  Northern  men  and  Southern  men,  that 
during  the  whole  of  that  fight  I  carried  the  banner  of 
popular  sovereignty  aloft,  and  never  allowed  it  to  trail 
in  the  dust,  or  lowered  my  flag  until  victory  perched 
upon  our  arms.  When  the  Lecompt^Dn  constitution 
was  defeated,  the  question  arose  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  had  advocated  it  what  they  should  next  resort  to 
in  order  to  carry  out  their  views.  They  devised  a 
measure  known  as  the  English  bill,  and  granted  a 
general  amnesty  and  political  pardon  to  all  men  who 
had  fought  against  the  Lecompton  constitution,  pro- 
vided they  would  support  that  bill.  I  for  one  did  not 
choose  to  accept  the  pardon,  or  to  avail  myself  of  the 
amnesty  granted  on  that  condition.  The  fact  that  the 
supporters  of  Lecompton  were  willing  to  forgive  all 
differences  of  opinion  at  that  time,  in  the  event  those 
who  opposed  it  favored  the  English  bill,  was  an  admis- 


38  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

sion  that  they  did  not  think  that  opposition  to  Le- 
compton  impaired  a  man's  standing  in  the  Democratic 
party.  Now  the  question  arises:  What  was  that 
English  bill  which  certain  men  are  now  attempting  to 
make  a  test  of  political  orthodoxy  in  this  country.  It 
provided,  in  substance,  that  the  Lecompton  constitution 
should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their 
adoption  or  rejection,  at  an  election  which  was  held 
in  August  last,  and  in  case  they  refused  admission  un- 
der it,  that  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union 
until  she  had  93,420  inhabitants. 

I  was  in  favor  of  sending  the  constitution  back  in 
order  to  enable  the  people  to  say  whether  or  not  it  was 
their  act  and  deed,  and  embodied  their  will;  but  the 
other  proposition,  that  if  they  refused  to  come  into  the 
Union  under  it,  they  should  be  kept  out  until  they  had 
double  or  treble  the  population  they  then  had,  I  never 
would  sanction  by  my  vote.  The  reason  why  I  could 
not  sanction  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  by  the 
English  bill,  if  the  people  of  Kansas  had  only  agreed  to 
become  a  slaveholding  State  under  the  Lecompton  con- 
stitution, they  could  have  done  so  with  35,000  people, 
but  if  they  insisted  on  being  a  free  State,  as  they  had  a 
right  to  do,  then  they  were  to  be  punished  by  being 
kept  out  of  the  Union  until  they  had  nearly  three  times 
that  population.  I  then  said  in  my  place  in  the  Senate, 
as  I  now  say  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas  has  popula- 
tion enough  for  a  slave  State  she  has  population 
enough  for  a  free  State.  I  have  never  yet  given  a  vote, 
and  I  never  intend  to  record  one,  making  an  odious 
and  unjust  distinction  between  the  different  States  of 
this  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle  in 
our  republican  form  of  government  that  all  the  States 
of  this  Union,  old  and  new,  free  and  slave,  stand  on  an 
exact  equality.  Equality  among  the  different  States 
is  a  cardinal  principle  on  which  all  our  institutions 
rest.  Wherever,  therefore,  you  make  a  discrimina- 
tion, saying  to  a  slave  State  that  it  shall  be  admitted 
with  35,000  inhabitants,  and  to  a  free  State  that  it 
shall  not  be  admitted  until  it  has  93,000  or  100,000 
inhabitants,  you  are  throwing  the  whole  weight  of  the 
Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  one 
class  of  States  against  the  other.  Nor  would  I  on 
the  other  hand  any  sooner  sanction  the  doctrine  that  a 
free    State    could   be    admitted   into   the    Union   with 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  39 

35,000  people,  while  a  slave  State  was  kept  out  until  it 
had  93,000.  I  have  always  declared  in  the  Senate  my 
willingness,  and  I  am  willing  now,  to  adopt  the  rule 
that  no  Territory  shall  ever  become  a  State  until  it  has 
the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  ac- 
cording to  the  then  existing  ratio.  But  while  I  have 
always  been,  and  am  now,  willing  to  adopt  that  general 
rule,  I  was  not  willing  and  would  not  consent  to  make 
an  exception  of  Kansas,  as  a  punishment  for  her  ob- 
stinacy in  demanding  the  right  to  do  as  she  pleased  in 
the  formation  of  her  constitution.  It  is  proper  that  I 
should  remark  here  that  my  opposition  to  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  did  not  rest  upon  the  peculiar  position 
taken  by  Kansas  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  held 
then,  and  hold  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want 
a  slave  State,  it  is  their  right  to  make  one  and  be 
received  into  the  Union  under  it;  if,  on  the  contrary, 
they  want  a  free  State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it,  and 
no  man  should  ever  oppose  their  admission  because 
they  ask  it  under  the  one  or  the  other.  I  hold  to  that 
great  principle  of  self-government  which  asserts  the 
right  of  every  people  to  decide  for  them^selves  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  domestic  institutions  and 
fundamental  law  under  which  they  are  to  live. 

The  effort  has  been,  and  is  now  being,  made  in  this 
State  by  certain  postmasters  and  other  federal  office- 
holders, to  make  a  test  of  faith  on  the  support  of  the 
English  bill.  These  men  are  now  making  speeches  all 
over  the  State  against  me  and  in  favor  of  Lincoln, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  because  I  would  not  sanc- 
tion a  discrimination  between  slave  and  free  States  by 
voting  for  the  English  bill.  But  while  that  bill  is  made 
a  test  in  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  up  the 
Democratic  organization  in  this  State,  how  is  it  in  the 
other  States?  Go  to  Indiana,  and  there  you  find  that 
English  himself,  the  author  of  the  English  bill,  who  is 
a  candidate  for  reelection  to  Congress,  has  been  forced 
by  public  opinion  to  abandon  his  own  darling  project, 
and  to  give  a  promise  that  he  will  vote  for  the  ad- 
mission of  Kansas  at  once,  whenever  she  forms  a 
constitution  in  pursuance  of  law,  and  ratifies  it  by  a 
majority  vote  of  her  people.  Not  only  is  this  the  case 
with  English  himself,  but  I  am  informed  that  every 
Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  Indiana  takes 
the  same  ground.     Pass  to  Ohio,  and  there  you  find 


40  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct  7 

that  Groesbeck,  and  Pendleton,  and  Cox,  and  all  the 
other  anti-Lecompton  men  who  stood  shoulder  to 
shoulder  with  me  against  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
but  voted  for  the  English  bill,  now  repudiate  it  and 
take  the  same  ground  that  I  do  on  that  question.  So 
it  is  with  the  Joneses  and  others  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
so  it  it  with  every  other  Lecompton  Democrat  in  the 
free  States. 

They  now  abandon  even  the  English  bill,  and  come 
back  to  the  true  platform  which  I  proclaimed  at  the 
time  in  the  Senate,  and  upon  which  the  Democracy  of 
Illinois  now  stand.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  every  Lecompton  and  anti-Lecompton  Democrat 
in  the  free  States  has  abandoned  the  English  bill,  you 
are  told  that  it  is  to  be  made  a  test  upon  me,  while  the 
power  and  patronage  of  the  government  are  all  exerted 
to  elect  men  to  Congress  in  the  other  States  who 
occupy  the  same  position  with  reference  to  it  that  I  do. 
It  seems  that  my  political  offense  consists  in  the  fact 
that  I  did  not  first  vote  for  the  English  bill,  and  thus 
pledge  myself  to  keep  Kansas  out  of  the  Union  until 
she  has  a  population  of  93,420,  and  then  return  home, 
violate  that  pledge,  repudiate  the  bill,  and  take  the 
opposite  ground.  If  I  had  done  this,  perhaps  the  ad- 
ministration would  now  be  advocating  my  reelection, 
as  it  is  that  of  the  others  who  have  pursued  this  course. 
I  did  not  choose  to  give  that  pledge,  for  the  reason 
that  I  did  not  intend  to  carry  out  that  principle.  I 
never  will  consent,  for  the  sake  of  conciliating  the 
frowns  of  power,  to  pledge  myself  to  do  that  which  I 
do  not  intend  to  perform.  I  now  submit  the  question 
to  you,  as  my  constituency,  whether  I  was  not  right — 
first,  in  resisting  the  adoption  of  the  Lecompton  con- 
stitution; and  secondly,  in  resisting  the  English  bill. 
I  repeat  that  I  opposed  the  Lecompton  constitution 
because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of 
Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will.  I  denied  the 
right  of  any  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of 
government,  to  force  a  constitution  on  an  unwilling 
people.  There  was  a  time  when  some  men  could  pre- 
tend to  believe  that  the  Lecompton  constitution  em- 
bodied the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  but  that  time 
has  passed.  The  question  was  referred  to  the  people 
of  Kansas  under  the  English  bill  last  August,  and  then, 
at  a  fair  election,  they  rejected  the  Lecompton  consti- 


iCsS]  AT  GALESBURG  41 

tution  by  a  vote  of  from  eight  to  ten  against  it  to  one 
in  its  favor.  Since  it  has  been  voted  down  by  so  over- 
whelming a  majority,  no  man  can  pretend  that  it  was 
the  act  and  deed  of  that  people.  I  submit  the  question 
to  you,  whether  or  not,  if  it  had  not  been  for  me,  that 
constitution  would  have  been  crammed  down  the 
throats  of  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  consent. 
While  at  least  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  people 
here  present  agree  that  I  was  right  in  defeating  that 
project,  yet  my  enemies  use  the  fact  that  I  did  defeat 
it  by  doing  right,  to  break  me  down  and  put  another 
man  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  my  place.  The 
very  men  who  acknowledge  that  I  was  right  in  defeat- 
ing Lecompton  now  form  an  alliance  with  federal 
office-holders,  professed  Lecompton  men,  to  defeat  me 
because  I  did  right. 

My  political  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  no  hope  on 
earth,  and  has  never  dreamed  that  he  had  a  chance  of 
success,  were  it  not  for  the  aid  that  he  is  receiving 
from  federal  office-holders,  who  are  using  their  in- 
fluence and  the  patronage  of  the  government  against 
me  in  revenge  for  my  having  defeated  the  Lecompton 
constitution.  What  do  you  Republicans  think  of  a 
political  organization  that  will  try  to  make  an  unholy 
and  unnatural  combination  w'ith  its  professed  foes  to 
beat  a  man  merely  because  he  has  done  right?  You 
know  such  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  your  own  party. 
You  know  that  the  ax  of  decapitation  is  suspended 
over  every  man  in  office  in  Illinois,  and  the  terror  of 
proscription  is  threatened  every  Democrat  by  the 
present  administration,  unless  he  supports  the  Re- 
publican ticket  in  preference  to  my  Democratic  as- 
sociates and  myself.  I  could  find  an  instance  in  the 
postmaster  of  the  city  of  Galesburg.  and  in  every  other 
postmaster  in  this  vicinity,  all  of  whom  have  been 
stricken  down  simply  because  they  discharged  the 
duties  of  their  offices  honestly,  and  supported  the 
regular  Democratic  ticket  in  this  State  in  the  right. 
The  Republican  party  is  availing  itself  of  every  un- 
worthy means  in  the  present  contest  to  carry  the 
election,  because  its  leaders  know  that  if  they  let  this 
chance  slip  they  will  never  have  another,  and  their 
hopes  of  making  this  a  Republican  State  will  be 
blasted  forever. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  whether  the  country  has  any 


42 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 


interest  in  sustaining  this  organization  known  as  the 
Republican  party.  That  party  is  unhke  all  other 
political  organizations  in  this  country.  All  other 
parties  have  been  national  in  their  character — have 
avowed  their  principles  alike  in  the  slave  and  free 
States,  in  Kentucky  as  well  as  Illinois,  in  Louisiana  as 
well  as  in  Massachusetts.  Such  was  the  case  with  the 
Old  Whig  party,  and  such  was  and  is  the  case  with  the 
Democratic  party.  Whigs  and  Democrats  could  pro- 
claim their  principles  boldly  and  fearlessly  in  the  North 
and  in  the  South,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  wher- 
ever the  Constitution  ruled  and  the  American  flag 
waved  over  American  soil. 

But  now  you  have  a  sectional  organization,  a  party 
which  appeals  to  the  Northern  section  of  the  Union 
against  the  Southern,  a  party  which  appeals  _  to 
Northern  passion,  Northern  pride,  Northern  ambition, 
and  Northern  prejudices,  against  Southern  people,  the 
Southern  States,  and  Southern  institutions.  The 
leaders  of  that  party  hope  that  they  will  be  able  to  unite 
the  Northern  States  in  one  great  sectional  party,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  North  is  the  stronger  section,  that 
they  will  thus  be  enabled  to  outvote,  conquer,  govern, 
and  control  the  South.  Hence  you  find  that  they  now 
make  speeches  advocating  principles  and  measures 
which  cannot  be  defended  in  any  slave-holding  State 
of  this  Union.  Is  there  a  Republican  residing  in 
Galesburg  who  can  travel  into  Kentucky,  and  carry  his 
principles  with  him  across  the  Ohio?  What  Re- 
publican from  Massachusetts  can  visit  the  Old  Do- 
minion without  leaving  his  principles  behind  him  when 
he  crosses  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line?  Permit  me  to 
say  to  you  in  perfect  good  humor,  but  in  all  sincerity, 
that  no  political  creed  is  sound  which  cannot  be  pro- 
claimed fearlessly  in  every  State  of  this  Union  where 
the  Federal  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land.  Not  only  is  this  Republican  party  unable  to 
proclaim  its  principles  alike  in  the  North  and  in  the 
South,  in  the  free  States  and  in  the  slave  States,  but  it 
cannot  even  proclaim  them  in  the  same  forms  and  give 
them  the  same  strength  and  meaning  in  all  parts  of  the 
same  State.  My  friend  Lincoln  finds  it  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  manage  a  debate  in  the  central  part  of  the 
State,  where  there  is  a  mixture  of  men  from  the  North 
and    the    South.      In    the    extreme    northern    part    of 


i858]  AT  GALES  BURG  43 

Illinois  he  can  proclaim  as  bold  and  radical  Abolition- 
ism as  ever  Giddings,  Lovejoy,  or  Garrison  enunciated; 
but  when  he  gets  down  a  little  further  south  he  claims 
that  he  is  an  old-line  Whig,  a  disciple  of  Henry  Clay, 
and  declares  that  he  still  adheres  to  the  old-line  Whig 
creed,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Abolition- 
ism, or  negro  equality,  or  negro  citizenship.  I  once 
before  hinted  this  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  public  speech, 
and  at  Charleston  he  defied  me  to  show  that  there  was 
any  difference  between  his  speeches  in  the  north  and 
in  the  south,  and  that  they  were  not  in  strict  harmony. 
I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  two  of  them,  and  you 
can  then  say  whether  you  would  be  apt  to  believe  that 
the  same  man  ever  uttered  both.  In  a  speech  in  reply 
to  me  at  Chicago  in  July  last,  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  speaking 
of  the  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man,  used 
the  following  language: 

I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon 
principle,"  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will  it  stop  ? 
If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not 
another  man  say  it  does  not  mean  another  man?  If  the 
Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the  statute-book 
in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out.  Who  is  so  bold  as  to 
do  it?     If  it  is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out. 

You  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  there  proposed  that  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  declaring 
all  men  to  be  born  equal,  did  not  include  the  negro 
and  put  him  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  that 
we  should  take  the  statute-book  and  tear  it  out.  He 
there  took  the  ground  that  the  negro  race  is  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  the  equal  of  the 
white  race,  and  that  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
distinction  in  the  races,  making  one  superior  and  the 
other  inferior.     I  read  now  from  the  same  speech: 

My  friends  ihe  says'],  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long 
as  I  desire  to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say  let  us  discard  all 
this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other  man — this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  there- 
fore they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position,  discarding 
our  standard  that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us  discard  all 
these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this 
land,  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up  declaring  that 
all  men   are   created   equal. 


44  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

["That's  right,"  etc.] 

Yes,  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  think  it  is  right,  but 
the  Lincoln  men  down  in  Coles,  Tazewell,  and  Sanga- 
mon counties  do  not  think  it  is  right.  In  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  same  speech,  talking  to  the  Chicago  Aboli- 
tionists, he  said :  'T  leave  you,  hoping  that  the  lamp  of 
liberty  will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no 
longer  be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal."  {'Good,  good!"]  Well,  you  say  good  to  that, 
and  you  are  going  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  holds 
that  doctrine.  I  will  not  blame  you  for  supporting  him 
on  that  ground,  but  I  will  show  you,  in  immediate 
contrast  with  that  doctrine,  what  Mr.  Lincoln  said 
down  in  Egypt  in  order  to  get  votes  in  that  locality 
where  they  do  not  hold  to  such  a  doctrine.  In  a  joint 
discussion  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  at  Charles- 
ton, I  think,  on  the  i8th  of  last  month,  Mr.  Lincoln, 
referring  to  this  subject,  used  the  following  language: 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in 
favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  white  and  black  races  ;  that  I  am  not  nor 
ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  free 
negroes,  or  jurors,  or  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,,  or 
having  them  to  marry  with  white  people.  I  will  say  in 
addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
white  and  black  races,  which,  I  suppose,  will  forever  for- 
bid the  two  races  living  together  upon  terms  of  social  and 
political  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live, 
that  while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the 
position  of  superior  and  inferior,  that  I  as  much  as  any 
other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being 
assigned  to  the  white  man. 

["Good  for  Lincoln!"] 

Fellow-citizens,  here  you  find  men  hurrahing  for 
Lincoln,  and  saying  that  he  did  right  when  in  one  part 
of  the  State  he  stood  up  for  negro  equality,  and  in 
another  part,  for  political  effect,  discarded  the  doctrine, 
and  declared  that  there  always  must  be  a  superior  and 
inferior  race.  Abolitionists  up  north  are  expected  and 
required  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the 
equality  of  the  races,  holding  that  by  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  the  white  man  and  the  negro  were 
created  equal,  and  endowed  by  the  divine  law  with  that 
equality,  and  down  south  he  tells  the  Old  Whigs,  the 
Kentuckians,  Virginians,  and  Tennesseeans  that  there 


1858]  AT  GALESBURG  45 

is  a  physical  difference  in  the  races,  making  one 
superior  and  the  other  inferior,  and  that  he  is  in  favor 
of  maintaining  the  superiority  of  the  white  race  over 
the  negro. 

Now,  how  can  you  reconcile  those  two  positions  of 
Mr.  L,incoln?  He  is  to  be  voted  for  in  the  south  as  a 
pro-slavery  man,  and  he  is  to  be  voted  for  in  the  north 
as  an  Abolitionist.  Up  here  he  thinks  it  is  all  non- 
sense to  talk  about  a  difference  between  the  races,  and 
says  that  he  must  "discard  all  quibbling  about  this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and 
therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position." 
Down  south  he  makes  this  "quibble"  about  this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior  as  the 
creed  of  his  party,  and  declares  that  the  negro  can 
never  be  elevated  to  the  position  of  the  white  man.  You 
find  that  his  political  meetings  are  called  by  different 
names  in  different  counties  in  the  State.  Here  they 
are  called  Republican  meetings,  but  in  old  Tazewell, 
where  Lincoln  made  a  speech  last  Tuesday,  he  did  not 
address  a  Republican  meeting,  but  ''a  grand  rally  of 
the  Lincoln  men."  There  are  very  few  Republicans 
there,  because  Tazewell  County  is  filled  with  old  Vir- 
ginians and  Kentuckians,  all  of  whom  are  Whigs  or 
Democrats,  and  if  Mr.  Lincoln  had  called  an  Abolition 
or  Republican  meeting  there,  he  would  not  get  many 
votes.  Go  down  into  Egypt,  and  you  will  find  that  he 
and  his  party  are  operating  under  an  alias  there,  which 
his  friend  Trumbull  has  given  them,  in  order  that  they 
may  cheat  the  people.  When  I  was  down  in  Monroe 
County  a  few  weeks  ago  addressing  the  people,  I  saw 
hand-bills  posted  announcing  that  Mr.  Trumbull  was 
going  to  speak  in  behalf  of  Lincoln,  and  what  do  you 
think  the  name  of  his  party  was  there?  Why,  tht 
"Free  Democracy."  Mr.  Trumbull  and  Mr.  Jehu 
Baker  were  announced  to  address  the  Free  Democracy 
of  Monroe  County,  and  the  bill  was  signed  "Many 
Free  Democrats."  The  reason  that  Mr,  Lincoln  and 
his  party  adopted  the  name  of  "Free  Democracy" 
down  there  was  because  Monroe  County  has  always 
been  an  old-fashioned  Democratic  county,  and  hence 
it  was  necessary  to  make  the  people  believe  that  they 
were  Democrats,  sympathized  with  them,  and  were 
fighting  for  Lincoln  as  Democrats.  Come  up  to 
Springfield,  where  Lincoln  now  lives  and  always  has 


46  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

lived,  and  you  find  that  the  convention  of  his  party 
which  assembled  to  nominate  candidates  for  the 
legislature,  vi^ho  are  expected  to  vote  for  him  if  elected, 
dare  not  adopt  the  name  of  Republican,  but  assembled 
under  the  title  of  "All  opposed  to  the  Democracy." 
Thus  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  creed  cannot  travel 
through  even  one  half  of  the  counties  of  this  State, 
but  that  it  changes  its  hues,  and  becomes  lighter  and 
lighter  as  it  travels  from  the  extreme  north,  until  it  is 
nearly  white  when  it  reaches  the  extreme  south  end  of 
the  State.  I  ask  you,  my  friends,  why  cannot  Re- 
publicans avow  their  principles  alike  everywhere?  I 
would  despise  myself  if  I  thought  that  I  was  procuring 
your  votes  by  concealing  my  opinions,  and  by  avow- 
ing one  set  of  principles  in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  a 
different  set  in  another  part. 

If  I  do  not  truly  and  honorably  represent  your  feel- 
ings and  principles,  then  I  ought  not  to  be  your  sena- 
tor; and  I  will  never  conceal  my  opinions,  or  modify 
or  change  them  a  hair's-breadth,  in  order  to  get  votes. 
I  tell  you  that  this  Chicago  doctrine  of  Lincoln's — de- 
claring that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  made 
equal  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  b> 
Divine  Providence — is  a  monstrous  heresy.  The 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  never 
dreamed  of  the  negro  when  they  were  writing  that 
document.  They  referred  to  white  men,  to  men  of 
European  birth  and  European  descent,  when  they  de- 
clared the  equality  of  all  men.  I  see  a  gentleman 
there  in  the  crowd  shaking  his  head.  Let  me  remind 
him  that  when  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote  that  document 
he  was  the  owner,  and  so  continued  until  his  death, 
of  a  large  number  of  slaves.  Did  he  intend  to  say  in 
that  Declaration  that  his  negro  slaves,  which  he  held 
and  treated  as  property,  were  created  his  equals  by 
divine  law,  and  that  he  was  violating  the  law  of  God 
every  day  of  his  life  by  holding  them  as  slaves?  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  when  that  Declaration  was 
put  forth,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  were  slave- 
holding  colonies,  and  every  man  who  signed  that  in- 
strument represented  a  slave-holding  constituency. 
Recollect,  also,  that  no  one  of  them  emancipated  his 
slaves,  much  less  put  them  on  an  equality  with  him- 
self, after  he  signed  the  Declaration.  On  the  contrary, 
they  all  continued  to  hold  their  negroes  as  slaves  dur- 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  47 

ing  the  Revolutionary  War.  Now,  do  you  believe — 
are  you  willing  to  have  it  said — that  every  man  who 
signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  declared  the 
negro  his  equal,  and  then  was  hypocrite  enough  to 
continue  to  hold  him  as  a  slave,  in  violation  of  what 
he  believed  to  be  the  divine  law?  And  yet  when  you 
say  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  includes  the 
negro,  you  charge  the  signers  of  it  with  hypocrisy. 

I  say  to  you  frankly,  that  in  my  opinion  this  govern- 
ment was  made  by  our  fathers  on  the  white  basis.  It 
was  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men 
and  their  posterity  forever,  and  was  intended  to  be 
administered  by  white  men  in  all  time  to  come.  But 
while  I  hold  that  under  our  Constitution  and  political 
system  the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be  a  citizen, 
and  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  it  does  not  follow  by  any 
means  that  he  should  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it 
does  follow  that  the  negro  as  an  inferior  race  ought  to 
possess  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity 
which  he  can  safely  exercise  consistent  with  the  safety 
of  the  society  in  which  he  lives.  Humanity  requires, 
and  Christianity  commands,  that  you  shall  extend  to 
every  inferior  being,  and  every  dependent  being,  all  the 
privileges,  immunities,  and  advantages  which  can  be 
granted  to  them  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society. 
If  you  ask  me  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  privileges, 
I  answer  that  that  is  a  question  which  the  people  of 
each  State  must  decide  for  themselves.  Illinois  has 
decided  that  question  for  herself.  We  have  said  that 
in  this  State  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  nor  shall  he 
be  a  citizen.  Kentucky  holds  a  different  doctrine.  New 
York  holds  one  different  from  either,  and  Maine  one 
different  from  all.  Virginia,  in  her  policy  on  this 
question,  differs  in  many  respects  from  the  others,  and 
so  on,  until  there  are  hardly  two  States  whose  policy  is 
exactly  alike  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  white  man 
and  the  negro.  Nor  can  you  reconcile  them  and  make 
them  alike.  Each  State  must  do  as  it  pleases.  Illinois 
has  as  much  right  to  adopt  the  policy  which  we  have 
on  that  subject  as  Kentucky  had  to  adopt  a  different 
policy.  The  great  principle  of  this  government  is  that 
each  State  has  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  on  all  these 
questions,  and  no  other  State  or  power  on  earth  has 
the  right  to  interfere  with  us,  or  complain  of  us  merely 
because  our  system  differs  from  theirs.     In  the  com- 


48  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

promise  measures  of  1850,  Mr.  Clay  declared  that  this 
great  principle  ought  to  exist  in  the  Territories  as  well 
as  in  the  States,  and  I  reasserted  his  doctrine  in  the 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  understand,  and 
those  who  are  determined  to  vote  for  him,  no  matter 
whether  he  is  a  pro-slavery  man  in  the  south  and  a 
negro-equality  advocate  in  the  north,  cannot  be  made 
to  understand,  how  it  is  that  in  a  Territory  the  people 
can  do  as  they  please  on  the  slavery  question  under  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  us  see  whether  I  cannot 
explain  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  impartial  men. 
Chief  Justice  Taney  has  said,  in  his  opinion  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  that  a  negro  slave,  being  property,  stands 
on  an  equal  footing  with  other  property,  and  that  the 
owner  may  carry  them  into  United  States  territory  the 
same  as  he  does  other  property.  Suppose  any  two  of 
you  neighbors  shall  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas,  one 
carrying  $100,000  worth  of  negro  slaves  and  the  other 
$100,000  worth  of  mixed  merchandise,  including  quan- 
tities of  liquors.  You  both  agree  that  under  that 
decision  you  may  carry  your  property  to  Kansas,  but 
when  you  get  it  there,  the  merchant  who  is  possessed 
of  the  liquors,  is  met  by  the  Maine  liquor  law,  which 
prohibits  the  sale  or  use  of  his  property,  and  the  owner 
of  the  slaves  is  met  by  equally  unfriendly  legislation, 
which  makes  his  property  worthless  after  he  gets  it 
there.  What  is  the  right  to  carry  your  property  into 
the  Territory  worth  to  either,  when  unfriendly  legisla- 
tion in  the  Territory  renders  it  worthless  after  you  get 
it  there?  The  slaveholder,  when  he  gets  his  slaves 
there,  finds  that  there  is  no  local  law  to  protect  him  in 
holding  them,  no  slave  code,  no  police  regulation  main- 
taining and  supporting  him  in  his  right,  and  he  dis- 
covers at  once  that  the  absence  of  such  friendly  legisla- 
tion excludes  his  property  from  the  Territory  just  as 
irresistibly  as  if  there  was  a  positive  constitutional 
prohibition  excluding  it. 

Thus  you  find  it  is  with  any  kind  of  property  in  a 
Territory;  it  depends  for  its  protection  on  the  local  and 
municipal  law.  If  the  people  of  a  Territory  want 
slavery,  they  make  friendly  legislation  to  introduce  it, 
but  if  they  do  not  want  it,  they  withhold  all  protection, 
from  it,  and  then  it  cannot  exist  there.  Such  was  the 
view  taken  on  the  subject  by  different  Southern  men 


MM  ' 


3858]  AT  GALESBURG  49 

when  the  Nebraska  bill  passed.  See  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  the  present  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  Congress,  made  at  that 
time,  and  there  you  will  find  this  whole  doctrine  argued 
out  at  full  length.  Read  the  speeches  of  other  Southern 
congressmen,  senators,  and  representatives,  made  in 
1854,  and  you  will  find  that  they  took  the  same  view  of 
the  subject  as  Mr.  Orr — that  slavery  could  never  be 
forced  on  a  people  who  did  not  want  it.  I  hold  that  in 
this  country  there  is  no  power  on  the  face  of  the  globe 
that  can  force  any  institution  on  an  unwilling  people. 
The  great  fundamental  principle  of  our  government  is 
that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  shall 
be  left  perfectly  free  to  decide  for  themselves  what  shall 
be  the  nature  and  character  of  their  institutions. 
When  this  government  was  made,  it  was  based  on  that 
principle.  At  the  time  of  its  formation  there  were 
twelve  slave-holding  States,  and  one  free  State,  in  this 
Union.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the 
Republicans,  of  uniformity  of  laws  of  all  the  States 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  had  prevailed;  suppose  Mr. 
Lincoln  himself  had  been  a  member  of  the  convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  that  he  had  risen 
in  that  august  body,  and,  addressing  the  Father  of  his 
Country,  had  said  as  he  did  at  Springfield: 

A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — 
I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all 
the  other. 

What  do  you  think  would  have  been  the  result? 
Suppose  he  had  made  that  convention  believe  that 
doctrine,  and  they  had  acted  upon  it,  what  do  you 
think  would  have  been  the  result?  Do  you  believe  that 
one  free  State  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slave- 
holding  States,  and  thus  abolished  slavery?  On  the 
contrary,  would  not  the  twelve  slave-holding  States 
have  outvoted  the  one  free  State,  and  under  his  doc- 
trine have  fastened  slavery  by  an  irrevocable  constitu- 
tional provision  upon  every  inch  of  the  American 
republic?  Thus  you  see  that  the  doctrine  he  now 
advocates,  if  proclaimed  at  the  beginning  of  the  gov- 
ernment,   would   have   established   slavery   everywhere 


5° 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  COct.  7 


throughout  the  American  continent;  and  are  you  will- 
ing, now  that  we  have  the  majority  section,  to  exercise 
a  power  which  we  never  would  have  submitted  to  when 
we  were  in  the  minority?  If  the  Southern  States  had 
attempted  to  control  our  institutions,  and  make  the 
States  all  slave  when  they  had  the  power,  I  ask  would 
you  have  submitted  to  it?  If  you  would  not,  are  you 
willing,  now  that  we  have  become  the  strongest  under 
that  great  principle  of  self-government  that  allows 
?ach  State  to  do  as  it  pleases,  to  attempt  to  control  the 
Southern  institutions?  Then,  my  friends,  I  say  to  you 
that  there  is  but  one  path  of  peace  in  this  republic, 
and  that  is  to  administer  this  government  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States, 
allowing  each  State  to  decide  for  itself  whether  it  wants 
slavery  or  not.  If  Illinois  will  settle  the  slavery  ques- 
tion for  herself,  and  mind  her  own  business  and  let  her 
neighbors  alone,  we  will  be  at  peace  with  Kentucky, 
and  every  other  Southern  State.  If  every  other  State 
in  the  Union  will  do  the  same,  there  will  be  peace 
between  the  North  and  South,  and  in  the  whole  Union. 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply. 

My  Fellow-citisens:  A  very  large  portion  of 
the  speech  which  Judge  Douglas  has  addressed 
to  you  has  previously  been  delivered  and  put  in. 
print.  I  do  not  mean  that  for  a  hit  upon  the 
judge  at  all.  If  I  had  not  been  interrupted,  I 
was  going  to  say  that  such  an  answer  as  I  was 
able  to  make  to  a  very  large  portion  of  it,  had 
already  been  more  than  once  made  and  published. 
There  has  been  an  opportunity  afforded  to  the 
public  to  see  our  respective  views  upon  the  top- 
ics discussed  in  a  large  portion  of  the  speech 
which  he  has  just  delivered.  I  make  these  re- 
marks for  the  purpose  of  excusing  myself  for 
not  passing  over  the  entire  ground  that  the  judge 
has  traversed.  I,  however,  desire  to  take  up 
some  of  the  points  that  he  has  attended  to,  and 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  51 

ask  your  attention  to  them,  and  I  shall  follow  him 
backward  upon  some  notes  which  I  have  taken, 
reversing  the  order  by  beginning  where  he  con- 
cluded. 

The  judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  insisted  that  negroes  are  not 
included  in  that  Declaration ;  and  that  it  is  a 
slander  upon  the  framers  of  that  instrument  to 
suppose  that  negroes  were  meant  therein ;  and 
he  asks  you :  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  Mr. 
Jefferson,  who  penned  the  immortal  paper,  could 
have  supposed  himself  applying  the  language  of 
that  instrument  to  the  negro  race,  and  yet  held 
a  portion  of  that  race  in  slavery  ?  Would  he  not 
at  once  have  freed  them  ?  I  only  have  to  remark 
upon  this  part  of  the  judge's  speech  (and  that, 
too,  very  briefly,  for  I  shall  not  detain  myself, 
or  you,  upon  that  point  for  any  great  length  of 
time),  that  I  believe  the  entire  records  of  the 
Avorld,  from  the  date  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence up  to  within  three  years  ago,  may 
be  searched  in  vain  for  one  single  affirmation, 
from  one  single  man,  that  the  negro  was  not  in- 
cluded in  the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  I 
think  I  may  defy  Judge  Douglas  to  show  that  he 
ever  said  so,  that  Washington  ever  said  so,  that 
any  President  ever  said  so,  that  any  member  of 
Congress  ever  said  so,  or  that  any  living  man 
upon  the  whole  earth  ever  said  so,  until  the  neces- 
sities of  the  present  policy  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  regard  to  slavery  had  to  invent  that 
affirmation.  And  I  will  remind  Judge  Douglas 
and  this  audience  that  while  Mr.  Jefferson  was 
the  owner  of  slaves,  as  undoubtedly  he  was, 
in  speaking  upon  this  very  subject,  he  used  the 
strong  language  that  ''he  trembled  for  his  coun- 


52  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

try  when  he  remembered  that  God  was  just"; 
and  I  will  offer  the  highest  premium  in  my 
power  to  Judge  Douglas  if  he  will  show  that  he, 
in  all  his  life,  ever  uttered  a  sentiment  at  all  akin 
to  that  of  Jefferson. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  will  ask  your  atten- 
tion is  the  judge's  comment  upon  the  fact,  as  he 
assumes  it  to  be,  that  we  cannot  call  our  public 
meetings  as  Republican  meetings;  and  he  in- 
stances Tazewell  County  as  one  of  the  places 
where  the  friends  of  Lincoln  have  called  a  pub- 
lic meeting  and  have  not  dared  to  name  it  a  Re- 
publican meeting.  He  instances  Monroe  County 
as  another  where  Judge  Trumbull  and  Jehu 
Baker  addressed  the  persons  whom  the  judge 
assumes  to  be  the  friends  -of  Lincoln,  calling 
them  the  **Free  Democracy."  I  have  the  honor 
to  inform  Judge  Douglas  that  he  spoke  in  that 
very  county  of  Tazewell  last  Saturday,  and  I 
was  there  on  Tuesday  last,  and  when  he  spoke 
there  he  spoke  under  a  call  not  venturing  to  use 
the  word  "Democrat."  [Turning  to  Judge 
Douglas.]     What  think  you  of  this? 

So,  again,  there  is  another  thing  to  which  I 
would  ask  the  judge's  attention  upon  this  sub- 
ject. In  the  contest  of  1856  his  party  delighted 
to  call  themselves  together  as  the  ''National 
Democracy,"  but  now,  if  there  should  be  a  no- 
tice put  up  anywhere  for  a  meeting  of  the  "Na- 
tional Democracy,"  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  would  not  come.  They  would  not  sup- 
pose themselves  invited.  They  would  under- 
stand that  it  was  a  call  for  those  hateful  post- 
masters whom  he  talks  about. 

Now  a  few  words  in  regard  to  these  extracts 
from  speeches  of  mine  which  Judge  Douglas  has 


r858]  AT  GALESBURG  53 

read  to  you,  and  which  he  supposes  are  in  very- 
great  contrast  to  each  other.  Those  speeches  have 
been  before  the  public  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  if  they  have  any  inconsistency  in  them,  if 
there  is  any  conflict  in  them,  the  public  have 
been  able  to  detect  it.  When  the  judge  says,  in 
speaking  on  this  subject,  that  I  make  speeches  of 
one  sort  for  the  people  of  the  northern  end  of 
the  State,  and  of  a  different  sort  for  the  southern 
people,  he  assumes  that  I  do  not  understand  that 
my  speeches  will  be  put  in  print  and  read  north 
and  south.  I  knew  all  the  while  that  the  speech 
that  I  made  at  Chicago  and  the  one  I  made  at 
Jonesboro  and  the  one  at  Charleston  would  all 
be  put  in  print,  and  all  the  reading  and  intelli- 
gent men  in  the  community  would  see  them  and 
know  all  about  my  opinions ;  and  I  have  not  sup- 
posed, and  do  not  suppose,  that  there  is  any  con- 
flict whatever  between  them.  But  the  judge  will 
have  it  that  if  we  do  not  confess  that  there  is  a 
sort  of  inequality  between  the  white  and  black 
races  which  justifies  us  in  making  them  slaves, 
we  must,  then,  insist  that  there  is  a  degree  of 
equality  that  requires  us  to  make  them  our  wives. 
Now,  I  have  all  the  while  taken  a  broad  distinc- 
tion in  regard  to  that  matter ;  and  that  is  all  there 
is  in  these  different  speeches  which  he  arrays 
here,  and  the  entire  reading  of  either  of  the 
speeches  will  show  that  that  distinction  was 
made.  Perhaps  by  taking  two  parts  of  the  same 
speech  he  could  have  got  up  as  much  of  a  con- 
flict as  the  one  he  has  found.  I  have  all  the 
while  maintained  that  in  so  far  as  it  should  be 
insisted  that  there  was  an  equality  between  the 
white  and  black  races  that  should  produce  a  per- 
fect social  and  political  equality,  it  was  an  im- 


54  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

possibility.  This  you  have  seen  in  my  printed 
speeches,  and  with  it  I  have  said  that  i'n  their 
right  to  "life,  Hberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness," as  proclaimed  in  that  old  Declaration,  the 
inferior  races  are  our  equals.  And  these  decla- 
rations I  have  constantly  made  in  reference  to 
the  abstract  moral  question,  to  contemplate  and 
consider  when  we  are  legislating-  about  any  new 
country  which  is  not  already  cursed  with  the  ac- 
tual presence  of  the  evil — slavery.  I  have  never 
manifested  any  impatience  with  the  necessities 
that  spring  from  the  actual  presence  of  black  peo- 
ple amongst  us,  and  the  actual  existence  of  slav- 
ery amongst  us  where  it  does  already  exist;  but 
I  have  insisted  that,  in  legislating  for  new  coun- 
tries where  it  does  not  exist,  there  is  no  just  rule 
other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract  right.  With 
reference  to  those  new  countries,  those  maxims 
as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  ''life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness"  were  the  just  rules  to 
be  constantly  referred  to.  There  is  no  misun- 
derstanding this,  except  by  men  interested  to 
misunderstand  it.  I  take  it  that  I  have  to  ad- 
dress an  intelligent  and  reading  community  who 
will  peruse  what  I  say,  weigh  it,  and  then  judge 
whether  I  advance  improper  or  unsound  views, 
or  whether  I  advance  hypocritical  and  decep- 
tive and  contrary  views  in  different  portions  of 
the  country.  I  believe  myself  to  be  guilty  of  no 
such  thing  as  the  latter,  though,  of  course,  I 
cannot  claim  that  I  am  entirely  free  from  all 
error  in  the  opinions  I  advance. 

The  judge  has  also  detained  us  awhile  in  re- 
gard to  the  distinction  between  his  party  and  our 
party.  His  he  assumes  to  be  a  national  party — 
ours  a  sectional  one.     He  does  this  in  asking  the 


i8s8]  AT  GALES  BURG  55 

question  whether  this  country  has  any  interest 
in  the  maintenance  of  the  RepubHcan  party  ?  He 
assumes  that  our  party  is  altogether  sectional — 
that  the  party  to  which  he  adheres  is  national; 
and  the  argument  is  that  no  party  can  be  a  right- 
ful party — can  be  based  upon  rightful  principles 
— unless  it  can  announce  its  principles  every- 
where. I  presume  that  Judge  Douglas  could  not 
go  into  Russia  and  announce  the  doctrine  of  our 
national  Democracy;  he  could  not  denounce  the 
doctrine  of  kings  and  emperors  and  monarchies 
in  Russia;  and  it  may  be  true  of  this  country, 
that  in  some  places  we  may  not  be  able  to  pro- 
claim a  doctrine  as  clearly  true  as  the  truth  of 
Democracy,  because  there  is  a  section  so  directly 
opposed  to  it  that  they  will  not  tolerate  us  in  do- 
ing so.  Is  it  the  true  test  of  the  soundness  of  a 
doctrine,  that  in  some  places  people  won't  let 
you  proclaim  it?  Is  that  the  way  to  test  the 
truth  of  any  doctrine?  Why,  I  understand  that 
at  one  time  the  people  of  Chicago  would  not  let 
Judge  Douglas  preach  a  certain  favorite  doctrine 
of  his.*  I  commend  to  his  consideration  the 
question,  whether  he  takes  that  as  a  test  of  the 
unsoundness  of  what  he  wanted  to  preach. 

There  is  another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  ask 

*  Lincoln  refers  to  the  following  incident :  On  September 
I,  1854,  Senator  Douglas  addressed  a  mass  meeting  in 
Chicago  in  defense  of  his  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  "When 
the  time  came,  flags  at  half-mast,  and  the  dismal  tolling 
of  church  bells  welcomed  him.  A  vast  and  silent  crowd 
•was  gathered,  but  not  to  hear  him.  Hisses  and  groans 
broke  in  upon  his  opening  sentences.  Hour  after  hour, 
from  eight  o'clock  until  midnight,  he  stood  before  them; 
time  and  again,  as  the  uproar  lessened,  his  voice  com- 
bated it ;  but  they  would  not  let  him  speak.  .  .  .  On  the 
■way  home  his  carriage  was  set  upon,  and  he  was  in 
danger  of  his  life." — "Stephen  A.  Douglas,"  by  William 
Garrett  Brown,  in  Riverside  Biographical  Series. 


^6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

attention  for  a  little  while  on  this  occasion. 
What  has  always  been  the  evidence  brought  for- 
ward to  prove  that  the  Republican  party  is  a  sec- 
tional party?  The  main  one  was  that  in  the 
Southern  portion  of  the  Union  the  people  did  not 
let  the  Republicans  proclaim  their  doctrines 
amongst  them.  That  has  been  the  main  evidence 
brought  forward — that  they  had  no  supporters, 
or  substantially  none,  in  the  slave  States.  The 
South  have  not  taken  hold  of  our  principles  as 
we  announce  them ;  nor  does  Judge  Douglas  now 
grapple  with  those  principles.  We  have  a  Re- 
publican State  platform,  laid  down  in  Springfield 
in  June  last,  stating  our  position  all  the  way 
through  the  questions  before  the  country.  We 
are  now  far  advanced  in  this  canvass.  Judge 
Douglas  and  I  have  made  perhaps  forty  speeches 
apiece,  and  we  have  now  for  the  fifth  time  met 
face  to  face  in  debate,  and  up  to  this  day  I  have 
not  found  either  Judge  Douglas  or  any  friend 
of  his  taking  hold  of  the  Republican  platform 
or  laying  his  finger  upon  anything  in  it  that  is 
wrong.  I  ask  you  all  to  recollect  that.  Judge 
Douglas  turns  away  from  the  platform  of  prin- 
ciples to  the  fact  that  he  can  find  people  some- 
where who  will  not  allow  us  to  announce  those 
principles.  If  he  had  great  confidence  that  our 
principles  were  wrong,  he  would  take  hold  of 
them  and  demonstrate  them  to  be  wrong.  But 
he  does  not  do  so.  The  only  evidence  he  has  of 
their  being  wrong  is  in  the  fact  that  there  are 
people  who  won't  allow  us  to  preach  them.  I 
ask  again  is  that  the  way  to  test  the  soundness 
of  a  doctrine? 

I  ask  his  attention  also  fo  the  fact  that  by  the 
rule  of  nationality  he  is  himself  fast  becoming 


I858J  AT  GALESBURG  57 

sectional.  I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  his 
speeches  would  not  go  as  current  now  south  of 
the  Ohio  River  as  they  have  formerly  gone  there. 
I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  felicitates 
himself  to-day  that  all  the  Democrats  of  the  free 
States  are  agreeing  with  him,  while  he  omits  to 
tell  us  that  the  Democrats  of  any  slave  State 
agree  with  him.  If  he  has  not  thought  of  this, 
I  commend  to  his  consideration  the  evidence  in 
his  own  declaration,  on  this  day,  of  his  becoming 
sectional  too.  I  see  it  rapidly  approaching. 
Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  ephemeral 
contest  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  I 
see  the  day  rapidly  approaching  when  his  pill  of 
sectionalism,  which  he  has  been  thrusting  down 
the  throats  of  Republicans  for  years  past,  will 
be  crowded  down  his  own  throat. 

Now  in  regard  to  what  Judge  Douglas  said 
(in  the  beginning  of  his  speech)  about  the  com- 
promise of  1850  containing  the  principle  of  the 
Nebraska  bill ;  although  I  have  often  presented 
my  views  upon  that  subject,  yet  as  I  have  not 
done  so  in  this  canvass,  I  will,  if  you  please,  de- 
tain you  a  little  with  them.  I  have  always  main- 
tained so  far  as  I  was  able  that  there  was  noth- 
ing of  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the 
compromise  of  1850  at  all — nothing  whatever. 
Where  can  you  find  the  principle  of  the 
Nebraska  bill  in  that  compromise?  If  any- 
where, in  the  two  pieces  of  the  compromise 
organizing  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico 
and  Utah.  It  was  expressly  provided  in 
these  two  acts  that,  when  they  came  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be  ad.- 
mitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  should 
choose  by  their  own  constitutions.    Nothing  was 


58  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

said  in  either  of  those  acts  as  to  what  was  to  be 
done  in  relation  to  slavery  during  the  territorial 
existence  of  those  Territories,  while  Henry  Clay 
constantly  made  the  declaration  (Judge  Douglas 
recognizing  him  as  a  leader)  that,  in  his  opinion, 
the  old  Mexican  laws  would  control  that  ques- 
tion during  the  territorial  existence,  and  that 
these  old  Alexican  laws  excluded  slavery.  How 
can  that  be  used  as  a  principle  for  declaring  that 
during  the  territorial  existence,  as  well  as  at  the 
time  of  framing  the  constitution,  the  people,  if 
you  please,  might  have  slaves  if  they  wanted 
them  ?  I  am  not  discussing  the  question  whether 
it  is  right  or  wrong;  but  how  are  the  New  Mexi- 
can and  Utah  laws  patterns  for  the  Nebraska 
bill?  I  maintain  that  the  organization  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico  did  not  establish  a  general  prin- 
ciple at  all.  It  had  no  feature  establishing  a  gen- 
eral principle.  The  acts  to  which  I  have  referred 
were  a  part  of  a  general  system  of  compromises. 
They  did  not  lay  down  what  was  proposed  as  a 
regular  policy  for  the  Territories ;  only  an  agree- 
ment in  this  particular  case  to  do  in  that  way, 
because  other  things  were  done  that  were  to  be 
a  compensation  for  it.  They  were  allowed  to 
come  in  in  that  shape,  because  in  another  way  it 
was  paid  for — considering  that  as  a  part  of  that 
system  of  measures  called  the  compromise  of 
1850,  which  finally  included  half  a  dozen  acts. 
It  included  the  admission  of  California  as  a  free 
State,  which  was  kept  out  of  the  Union  for  half 
a  year  because  it  had  formed  a  free  constitution. 
It  included  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  of 
Texas,  which  had  been  undefined  before,  which 
was  in  itself  a  slavery  question ;  for  if  you  pushed 
the  line  further  west,  you  made  Texas  larger, 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  59 

and  made  more  slave  Territory ;  while  if  you 
drew  the  line  toward  the  east,  you  narrowed  the 
boundary  and  diminished  the  domain  of  slavery, 
and  by  so  much  increased  free  Territory.  It  in- 
cluded the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia.  It  included  the  passage  of  a 
new  fugitive-slave  law.  All  these  things  were 
put  together,  and  though  passed  in  separate  acts, 
were  nevertheless  in  legislation  (as  the  speeches 
at  the  time  will  show)  made  to  depend  upon  each 
other.  Each  got  votes,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  other  measures  were  to  pass,  and  by 
this  system  of  compromise,  in  that  series  of  meas- 
ures, those  two  bills — the  New  Mexico  and  Utah 
bills — were  passed ;  and  I  say  for  that  reason 
they  could  not  be  taken  as  models,  framed  upon 
their  own  intrinsic  principle,  for  all  future  Ter- 
ritories. And  I  have  the  evidence  of  this  in  the 
fact  that  Judge  Douglas,  a  year  afterward,  or 
more  than  a  year  afterward  perhaps,  when  he 
first  introduced  bills  for  the  purpose  of-  framing 
new  Territories,  did  not  attempt  to  follow  these 
bills  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah ;  and  even  when 
he  introduced  this  Nebraska  bill,  I  think  you  will 
discover  that  he  did  not  exactly  follow  them. 
But  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  upon 
this  branch  of  the  discussion.  My  own  opinion 
is  that  a  thorough  investigation  will  show  most 
plainly  that  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills  were 
part  of  a  system  of  compromise,  and  not  de- 
signed as  patterns  for  future  territorial  legisla- 
tion, and  that  this  Nebraska  bill  did  not  follow 
them  as  a  pattern  at  all. 

The  judge  tells  us  in  proceeding,  that  he  is  op- 
posed to  making  any  odious  distinctions  between 
free  and  slave  States.     I  am  altogether  unaware 


6o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

that  the  Republicans  are  in  favor  of  making  any 
odious  distinctions  between  the  free  and  slave 
States.  But  there  still  is  a  difference,  I  think, 
between  Judge  Douglas  and  the  Republicans  in 
this.  I  suppose  that  the  real  difference  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  and  the  Republi- 
cans, on  the  contrary,  is  that  the  judge  is  not  in 
favor  of  making  any  difference  between  slavery 
and  liberty — that  he  is  in  favor  of  eradicating,  of 
pressing  out  of  view,  the  questions  of  preference 
in  this  country  for  free  or  slave  institutions ;  and 
consequently  every  sentiment  he  utters  discards 
the  idea  that  there  is  any  wrong  in  slavery. 
Everything  that  emanates  from  him  or  his  co- 
adjutors in  their  course  of  policy  carefully  ex- 
cludes the  thought  that  there  is  anything  wrong 
in  slavery.  All  their  arguments,  if  you  will  con- 
sider them,  will  be  seen  to  exclude  the  thought 
that  there  is  anything  whatever  wrong  in  slavery. 
If  you  will  take  the  judge's  speeches,  and  select 
the  short  and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by 
him, — as  his  declaration  that  he  "don't  care 
whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  down," — you  will 
see  at  once  that  this  is  perfectly  logical,  if  you 
do  not  admit  that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  you  do 
admit  that  it  is  wrong,  Judge  Douglas  cannot 
logically  say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down.  Judge  Douglas  de- 
clares that  if  any  community  wants  slavery  they 
have  a  right  to  have  it.  He  can  say  that  logi- 
cally, if  he  says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery ; 
but  if  you  admit  that  there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he 
cannot  logically  say  that  anybody  has  a  right  to 
do  wrong.  He  insists  that  upon  the  score  of 
equality,  the  ovvmers  of  slaves  and  owners  of 
property — of  horses  and  every  other  sort  of  prop- 


-i858]   •  AT  GALESBURG  ,61 

erty — should  be  alike,  and  hold  them  alike  in  a 
new  Territory.  That  is  perfectly  logical,  if  the 
two  species  of  property  are  alike,  and  are  equally 
founded  in  right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of 
them  is  wrong,  you  cannot  institute  any  equality 
between  right  and  wrong.  And  from  this  differ- 
ence of  sentiment — the  belief  on  the  part  of  one 
that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a  policy  spring- 
ing from  that  belief  which  looks  to  the  arrest  of 
the  enlargement  of  that  wrong;  and  this  other 
sentiment,  that  it  is  no  wrong,  and  a  policy 
sprung  from  that  sentiment  which  will  tolerate  no 
idea  of  preventing  that  wrong  from  growing 
larger,  and  looks  to  there  never  being  an  end  of 
it  through  all  the  existence  of  things — arises  the 
real  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Republicans  on 
the  other.  Now,  I  confess  myself  as  belonging 
to  that  class  in  the  country  who  contemplate 
slavery  as  a  moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  hav- 
ing due  regard  for  its  actual  existence  amongst 
us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any 
satisfactory  way,  and  to  all  the  constitutional  ob- 
ligations which  have  been  thrown  about  it;  but 
who,  nevertheless,  desire  a  policy  that  looks  to 
the  prevention  of  it  as  a  wrong,  and  looks  hope- 
fully to  the  time  when  as  a  wrong  it  may  come 
to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again,  for,  I  believe,  the 
fifth  time,  if  not  the  seventh,  in  my  presence,  re- 
iterated his  charge  of  a  conspiracy  or  combina- 
tion between  the  National  Democrats  and  Re- 
publicans. What  evidence  Judge  Douglas  has 
upon  this  subject  I  know  not,  inasmuch  as  he 
never  favors  us  with  any.  I  have  said  upon  a 
former  occasion,  and  I  do  not  choose  to  suppress 


62  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

it  now,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  division 
in  the  judge's  party.  He  got  it  up  himself.  It 
was  all  his  and  their  work.  He  had,  I  think,  a 
great  deal  more  to  do  with  the  steps  that  led  to 
the  Lecompton  constitution  than  Mr.  Buchanan 
had;  though  at  last,  when  they  reached  it,  they 
quarreled  over  it,  and  their  friends  divided  upon 
it.  I  am  very  free  to  confess  to  Judge  Douglas  that 
I  have  no  objection  to  the  division ;  but  I  defy  the 
judge  to  show  any  evidence  that  I  have  in  any 
way  promoted  that  division,  unless  he  insists  on 
being  a  witness  himself  in  merely  saying  so.  I 
can  give  all  fair  friends  of  Judge  Douglas  here  to 
understand  exactly  the  view  that  Republicans 
take  in  regard  to  that  division.  Don't  you  re- 
member how  two  years  ago  the  opponents  of  the 
Democratic  party  were  divided  between  Fremont 
and  Fillmore?  I  guess  you  do.  Any  Democrat 
who  remembers  that  division  will  remember  also 
that  he  was  at  the  time  very  glad  of  it,  and  then 
he  will  be  able  to  see  all  there  is  between  the  Na- 
tional Democrats  and  the  Republicans.  What 
we  now  think  of  the  two  divisions  of  Democrats, 
you  then  thought  of  the  Fremont  and  Fillmore 
divisions.     That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

But  if  the  judge  continues  to  put  forward  the 
declaration  that  there  is  an  unholy,  unnatural  al- 
liance between  the  Republicans  and  the  National 
Democrats,  I  now  want  to  enter  my  protest 
against  receiving  him  as  an  entirely  competent 
witness  upon  that  subject.  I  w^ant  to  call  to  the 
judge's  attention  an  attack  he  made  upon  me  in 
the  first  one  of  these  debates,  at  Ottawa,  on  the 
2ist  of  August.  In  order  to  fix  extreme  Aboli- 
tionism upon  me.  Judge  Douglas  read  a  set  of 
resolutions  which  he  declared  had  been  passed 


i858]  AT  GALES  BURG  6$ 

by  a  Republican  State  convention,  in  October, 
1854,  at  Springfield,  111.,  and  he  declared  I  had 
taken   part   in   that   convention.     It   turned   out 
that  although  a  few  men  calling  themselves  an 
anti-Nebraska     State     convention     had     sat     at 
Springfield   about   that   time,   yet   neither   did   I 
take  any  part  in  it,  nor  did  it  pass  the  resolutions 
or  any  such  resolutions  as  Judge  Douglas  read. 
So  apparent  had  it  become  that  the  resolutions 
v^hich  he  read  had  not  been  passed  at  Springfield 
at  all,  nor  by  any  State  convention  in  which  I  had 
taken  part,  that  seven  days  afterward,  at  Free- 
port,  Judge  Douglas  declared  that  he  had  been 
misled   by   Charles   H.   Lanphier,   editor   of  the 
State  Register,  and  Thomas  L.  Harris,  member 
of  Congress  in  that  district,  and  he  promised  in 
that  speech  that  when  he  went  to  Springfield  he 
would  investigate  the  matter.     Since  then  Judge 
Douglas  has  been  to  Springfield,  and  I  presume 
has    made   the   investigation;   but   a   month   has 
passed  since  he  has  been  there,  and  so  far  as  I 
know,  he  has  made  no  report  of  the  result  of  his 
investigation.     I  have  waited  as  I  think  a  suf- 
ficient time  for  the  report  of  that  investigation, 
and  I  have  some  curiosity  to  see  and  hear  it.    A 
fraud,  an  absolute  forgery,  was  committed,  and 
the  perpetration  of  it  was  traced  to  the  three — 
Lanphier,  Harris  and  Douglas.    Whether  it  can 
be  narrowed  in  any  way,  so  as  to  exonerate  any 
one  of  them,   is   what  Judge  Douglas's  report 
would  probably  show. 

It  is  true  that  the  set  of  resolutions  read  by 
Judge  Douglas  were  published  in  the  Illinois 
State  Register  on  the  i6th  of  October,  1854,  as 
being  the  resolutions  of  an  anti-Nebraska  con- 
vention which  had  sat  in  that  same  month  of  Oc- 


64  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

tober,  at  Springfield.  But  it  is  also  true  that  the 
publication  in  the  Register  was  a  forgery  then, 
and  the  question  is  still  behind,  which  of  the 
three,  if  not  all  of  them,  committed  that  for- 
gery? The  idea  that  it  was  done  by  mistake  is 
absurd.  The  article  in  the  Illinois  State.  Regis- 
ter contains  part  of  the  real  proceedings  of  that 
Springfield  convention,  showing  that  the  writer 
of  the  article  had  the  real  proceedings  before 
him,  and  purposely  threw  out  the  genuine  reso- 
lutions passed  by  the  convention,  and  fraudu- 
lently substituted  the  others.  Lanphier  then,  as 
now,  was  the  editor  of  the  Register,  so  that  there 
seems  to  be  but  little  room  for  his  escape.  But  then 
it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  Lanphier  had  less 
interest  in  the  object  of  that  forgery  than  either 
of  the  other  two.  The  main  object  of  that  for- 
gery at  that  time  was  to  beat  Yates  and  elect  Har- 
ris to  Congress,  and  that  object  was  known  to  be 
exceedingly  dear  to  Judge  Douglas  at  that  time. 
Harris  and  Douglas  were  both  in  Springfield 
when  the  convention  was  in  session,  and  although 
they  both  left  before  the  fraud  appeared  in  the 
Register,  subsequent  events  show  that  they  have 
both  had  their  eyes  fixed  upon  that  convention. 

The  fraud  having  been  apparently  successful 
upon  that  occasion,  both  Harris  and  Douglas 
have  more  than  once  since  then  been  attempting 
to  put  it  to  new  uses.  As  the  fisherman's  wife, 
who,se  drowned  husband  was  brought  home  with 
his  body  full  of  eels,  said  when  she  was  asked 
what  was  to  be  done  with  him,  ''Take  the  eels 
out  and  set  him  again,"  so  Harris  and  Douglas 
have  shown  a  disposition  to  take  the  eels  out  of 
that  stale  fraud  by  which  they  gained  Harris's 
election,  and  set  the  fraud  again  more  than  once. 


1858]  AT  GALESBURG  65 

On  the  9th  of  July,  1856,  Douglas  attempted  a 
repetition  of  it  upon  Trumbull  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  will  appear  from 
the  appendix  to  the  Congressional  Globe  of  that 
date.  On  the  9th  of  August,  Harris  attempted  it 
again  upon  Norton  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, as  will  appear  by  the  same  document — the 
appendix  to  the  Congressional  Globe  of  that 
date.  On  the  21st  of  August  last,  all  three — 
Lanphier,  Douglas,  and  Harris — reattempted  it 
upon  me  at  Ottawa.  It  has  been  clung  to  and 
played  out  again  and  again  as  an  exceedingly 
high  trump  by  this  blessed  trio.  And  now  that 
it  has  been  discovered  publicly  to  be  a  fraud,  we 
find  that  Judge  Douglas  manifests  no  surprise  at 
it  at  all.  He  makes  no  complaint  of  Lanphier, 
who  must  have  known  it  to  be  a  fraud  from  the 
beginning.  He,  Lanphier,  and  Harris  are  just 
as  cozy  now,  and  just  as  active  in  the  concoction 
of  new  schemes  as  they  were  before  the  general 
discovery  of  this  fraud.  Now  all  this  is  very 
natural  if  they  are  all  alike  guilty  in  that  fraud, 
and  it  is  very  unnatural  if  any  one  of  them  is  in- 
nocent. Lanphier  perhaps  insists  that  the  rule 
of  honor  among  thieves  does  not  quite  require 
him  to  take  all  upon  himself,  and  consequently 
my  friend  Judge  Douglas  finds  it  difficult  to 
make  a  satisfactory  report  upon  his  investigation. 
But  meanwhile  the  three  are  agreed  that  each  is 
"a  most  honorable  man." 

Judge  Douglas  requires  an  indorsement  of  his 
truth  and  honor  by  a  reelection  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  he  makes  and  reports  against 
me  and  against  Judge  Trumbull,  day  after 
day,  charges  which  we  know  to  be  utterly 
untrue,    without    for    a    moment    seeming    to 


66  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

think  that  this  one  unexplained  fraud,  which  he 
promised  to  investigate,  will  be  the  least 
drawback  to  his  claim  to  belief.  Harris  ditto. 
He  asks  a  reelection  to  the  lower  House  of 
Congress  without  seeming  to  remember  at  all 
that  he  is  involved  in  this  dishonorable  fraud ! 
The  Illinois  State  Register,  edited  by  Lanphier, 
then,  as  now,  the  central  organ  of  both  Harris 
and  Douglas,  continues  to  din  the  public  ear  with 
these  assertions  without  seeming  to  suspect  that 
they  are  at  all  lacking  in  title  to  belief. 

After  all,  the  question  still  recurs  upon  us,  how 
did  that  fraud  originally  get  into  the  State  Reg- 
ister? Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of 
that  paper.  Lanphier  knows.  Lanphier  cannot 
be  ignorant  of  how  and  by  whom  it  was  original- 
ly concocted.  Can  he  be  induced  to  tell,  or  if  he 
has  told,  can  Judge  Douglas  be  induced  to  tell, 
how  it  was  originally  concocted  ?  It  may  be  true 
that  Lanphier  insists  that  the  two  men  for  whose 
benefit  it  was  originally  devised  shall  at  least 
bear  their  share  of  it !  How  that  is,  I  do  not 
know,  and  while  it  remains  unexplained,  I  hope 
to  be  pardoned  if  I  insist  that  the  mere  fact  of 
Judge  Douglas  making  charges  against  Trum- 
bull and  myself  is  not  quite  sufficient  evidence 
to  establish  them ! 

While  we  were  at  Freeport,  in  one  of  these 
joint  discussions,  I  answered  certain  interroga- 
tories which  Judge  Douglas  had  propounded  to 
me,  and  there  in  turn  propounded  some  to  him, 
which  he  in  a  sort  of  way  answered.  The  third 
one  of  these  interrogatories  I  have  with  me,  and 
wish  now  to  make  some  comments  upon  it.  It 
was  in  these  words :  'Tf  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  shall  decide  that  States  cannot 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  67 

exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor 
of  acquiescing  in,  adopting,  and  following  such 
decision  as  a  rule  of  poHtical  action?" 

To  this  interrogatory  Judge  Douglas  made  no 
answer  in  any  just  sense  of  the  word.  He  con- 
tented himself  with  sneering  at  the  thought  that 
it  was  possible  for  the  Supreme  Court  ever  to 
make  such  a  decision.  He  sneered  at  me  for 
propounding  the  interrogatory.  I  had  not  pro- 
pounded it  without  some  reflection,  and  I  wish 
now  to  address  to  this  audience  some  remarks 
upon  it. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  be- 
lieve it  is,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  we  find  the  following  language:  "This 
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all 
treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  su- 
preme law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in  every 
State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the 
constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding." 

The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  com- 
pressed into  the  sentence  which  I  will  now  read : 
"Now,  as  we  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part 
of  this  opinion,  upon  a  different  point,  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  I  repeat  it,  "the 
right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  ex- 
pressly affirmed^  in  the  Constitution."  What  is 
it  to  be  "affirmed"  in  the  Constitution?  :\lade 
firm  in  the  Constitution — so  made  that  it  cannot 
be  separated  from  the  Constitution  without 
breaking  the  Constitution— durable  as  the  Con- 
stitution, and  part  of  the  Constitution.    Now,  re- 


68  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

membering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which 
I  have  read,  affirming  that  that  instrument  is  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land ;  that  the  judges  of  every 
State  shall  be  bound  by  it,  any  law  or  constitu- 
tion of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing; that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  af- 
firmed in  that  Constitution,  is  made,  formed  into, 
and  cannot  be  separated  from  it  without  breaking 
it ;  durable  as  the  instrument,  part  of  the  instru- 
ment,— what  follows  as  a  short  and  even  syllo- 
gistic argument  from  it?  I  think  it  follows,  and 
I  submit  to  the  consideration  of  men  capable  of 
arguing,  whether  as  I  state  it,  in  syllogistic  form, 
the  argument  has  any  fault  in  it? 

Nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any 
State  can  destroy  a  right  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws 
of  any  State  can  destroy  the  right  of  property  in 
a  slave. 

I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in 
that  argument;  assuming  the  truth  of  the  prem- 
ises, the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I  have  capacity 
at  all  to  understand  it,  follows  inevitably.  There 
is  a  fault  in  it,  as  I  think,  but  the  fault  is  not  in 
the  reasoning;  the  falsehood,  in  fact,  is  a  fault  in 
the  premises.  I  believe  that  the  right  of  property 
in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed 
in  the  Constitution,  and  Judge  Douglas  thinks 
it  is.  I  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  and  the 
advocates  of  that  decision  may  search  in  vain  for 
the  place  in  the  Constitution  where  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  69. 

affirmed.  I  say,  therefore,  that  I  think  one  of 
the  premises  is  not  true  in  fact.  But  it  is  true 
with  Judge  Douglas.  It  is  true  with  the  Supreme 
Court  who  pronounced  it.  They  are  estopped 
from  denying  it,  and  being  estopped  from  deny- 
ing it,  the  conchision  follows  that  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  being  the  supreme  law, 
no  constitution  or  law  can  interfere  with  it.  It 
being  affirmed  in  the  decision  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  the  conclusion  in- 
evitably follows  that  no  State  law  or  constitution 
can  destroy  that  right.  I  then  say  to  Judge 
Douglas,  and  to  all  others,  that  I  think  it  will 
take  a  better  answer  than  a  sneer  to  show  that 
those  who  have  said  that  the  right  of  property 
in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in 
the  Constitution  are  not  prepared  to  show  that 
no  constitution  or  law  can  destroy  that  right. 
I  say  I  believe  it  will  take  a  far  better  argument 
than  a  mere  sneer  to  show  to  the  minds  of  intel- 
ligent men  that  whoever  has  so  said  iS'  not 
prepared,  whenever  public  sentiment  is  so  far 
advanced  as  to  justify  it,  to  say  the  other. 

This  is  but  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  one 
very  humble  man ;  but  it  is  my  opinion  that  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  as  it  is,  never  would  have 
been  made  in  its  present  form  if  the  party  that 
made  it  had  not  been  sustained  previously  by  the 
elections.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the  new  Dred 
Scott  decision,  deciding  against  the  right  of  the 
people  of  the  States  to  exclude  slavery,  will  never 
be  made  if  that  party  is  not  sustained  by  the  elec- 
tions. I  believe,  further,  that  it  is  just  as  sure 
to  be  made  as  to-morrow  is  to  come,  if  that  party 
.^hall  be  sustained.    I  have  said  upon  a  former  oc- 


70 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 


casion,  and  I  repeat  it  now,  that  the  course  of 
argument  that  Judge  Douglas  makes  use  of  upon 
this  subject  (I  charge  not  his  motives  in  this)  is 
preparing  the  pubHc  mind  for  that  new  Dred 
Scott  decision.  I  have  asked  him  again  to  point 
out  to  me  the  reasons  for  his  first  adherence  to 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  it  is.  I  have  turned 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  General  Jackson 
differed  with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obli- 
gation of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  I  have 
asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  Jefferson  dif- 
fered with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obliga- 
tion of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  Jefferson 
said  that  ''judges  are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and 
not  more  so."  And  he  said,  substantially,  that 
whenever  a  free  people  should  give  up  in  abso- 
lute submission  to  any  department  of  govern- 
ment, retaining  for  themselves  no  appeal  from  it, 
their  liberties  were  gone.  I  have  asked  his  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  Cincinnati  platform, 
upon  which  he  says  he  stands,  disregards  a  time- 
honored  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  defy- 
ing the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  a  national 
bank.  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that 
he  himself  was  one  of  the  most  active  instru- 
ments at  one  time  in  breaking  down  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  because  it  had 
made  a  decision  distasteful  to  him — a  struggle 
ending  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  of  his  sit- 
ting down  as  one  of  the  new  judges  who  were 
to  overslaugh  that  decision,  getting  his  title  of 
judge  in  that  very  way. 

So  far  in  this  controversy  I  can  get  no  answer 
at  all  from  Judge  Douglas  upon  these  subjects. 
Not  one  can  I  get  from  him,  except  that  he 
swells  himself  up  and  says :  "All  of  us  who  stand 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  71 

by  the  decision  ot  the  Supreme  Court  are  the 
friends  of  the  Constitution;  all  you  fellows  that 
dare  question  it  in  any  way  are  the  enemies  of 
the  Constitution."  Now  in  this  very  devoted  ad- 
herence to  this  decision,  in  opposition  to  all  the 
great  political  leaders  whom  he  has  recognized 
as  leaders — in  opposition  to  his  former  self  and 
history,  there  is  something  very  marked.  And 
the  manner  in  which  he  adheres  to  it — not  as  be- 
ing right  upon  the  merits,  as  he  conceives  (be- 
cause he  did  not  discuss  that  at  all),  but  as  being 
absolutely  obligatory  upon  every  one  simply  be- 
cause of  the  source  from  whence  it  comes — as 
that  which  no  man  can  gainsay,  whatever  it  may 
be — this  is  another  marked  feature  of  his  ad- 
herence to  that  decision.  It  marks  it  in  this  re- 
spect, that  it  commits  him  to  the  next  decision, 
whenever  it  comes,  as  being  as  obligatory 
as  this  one,  since  he  does  not  investigate 
it,  and  won't  inquire  whether  this  opinion 
is  right  or  wrong.  So  he  takes  the  next 
one  without  inquiring  whether  it  is  right  or 
wrong.  He  teaches  men  this  doctrine,  and  in  so 
doing  prepares  the  public  mind  to  take  the  next 
decision  when  it  comes  without  any  inquiry.  In 
this  I  think  I  argue  fairly  (without  questioning 
motives  at  all)  that  Judge  Douglas  is  most  in- 
geniously and  powerfully  preparing  the  public 
mind  to  take  that  decision  when  it  comes;  and 
not  only  so,  but  he  is  doing  it  in  various  other 
ways.  In  these  general  maxims  about  liberty — 
in  his  assertions  that  he  ''don't  care  whether 
slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down" ;  that  **who- 
ever  wants  slavery  has  a  right  to  have  it" ;  that 
''upon  principles  of  equality  it  should  be  allowed 
to  go  everywhere";  that  "there  is  no  inconsist- 


72  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

ency  between  free  and  slave  institutions" — in 
this  he  is  also  preparing  (whether  purposely  or 
not)  the  way  for  rnaking  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery national.  I  repeat  again,  for  I  wish  no  mis- 
understanding, that  I  do  not  charge  that  he 
means  it  so;  but  I  call  upon  your  minds  to  in- 
quire, if  you  were  going  to  get  the  best  instru- 
ment you  could,  and  then  set  it  to  work  in  the 
most  ingenious  w^y,  to  prepare  the  public  mind 
for  this  movement,  operating  in  the  free  States, 
where  there  is  now  an  abhorrence  of  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery,  could  you  find  an  instrument  so 
capable  of  doing  it  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  one  em- 
ployed in  so  apt  a  way  to  do  it? 

I  have  said  once  before,  and  I  will  repeat  it 
now,  that  Mr.  Clay  when  he  was  once  answering 
an  objection  to  the  Colonization  Society,  that  it 
had  a  tendency  to  the  ultimate  emancipation  of 
the  slaves,  said  that  ''those  who  would  repress 
all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipa- 
tion must  do  more  than  put  down  the  benevolent 
efforts  of  the  Colonization  Society — they  must 
go  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independ- 
ence, and  muzzle  the  cannon  that  thunders  its 
annual  joyous  return — they  must  blot  out  the 
moral  lights  around  us — they  must  penetrate  the 
human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  Hght  of  reason 
and  the  love  of  liberty" !  And  I  do  think — I  re- 
peat, though  I  said  it  on  a  former  occasion — that 
Judge  Douglas,  and  whoever,  like  him,  teaches 
that  the  negro  has  no  share,  humble  though  it 
may  be,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  is 
going  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence, and,  so  far  as  in  him  lies,  muzzling 
the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous  re- 
turn; that  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  73 

around  us,  when  he  contends  that  whoever  wants 
slaves  has  a  right  to  hold  them ;  that  he  is  pene- 
trating, so  far  as  lies  in  his  power,  the  human 
soul,  and  eradicating  the  light  of  reason  and 
the  love  of  liberty,  when  he  is  in  every  possible 
way  preparing  the  public  mind,  by  his  vast  in- 
fluence, for  making  the  institution  of  slavery  per- 
petual and  national. 

There  is,  my  friends,  only  one  other  point  to 
which  I  will  call  your  attention  for  the  remain- 
ing time  that  I  have  left  me,  and  perhaps  I  shall 
not  occupy  the  entire  time  that  I  have,  as  that 
one  point  may  not  take  me  clear  through  it. 

Among  the  interrogatories  that  Judge  Douglas 
propounded  to  me  at  Freeport,  there  was  one  in 
about  this  language :  **Are  you  opposed  to  the 
acquisition  of  any  further  territory  to  the  United 
States,  unless  slavery  shall  first  be  prohibited 
therein?"  I  answered  as  I  thought,  in  this  way, 
that  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  the  acquisi- 
tion of  additional  territory,  and  that  I  would 
support  a  proposition  for  the  acquisition  of 
additional  territory,  according  as  my  support- 
ing it  was  or  was  not  calculated  to  aggra- 
vate this  slavery  question  amongst  us.  I  then 
proposed  to  Judge  Douglas  another  interroga- 
tory, which  was  correlative  to  that :  ''Are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory  in  disre- 
gard of  how  it  may  affect  us  upon  the  slavery 
question?"  Judge  Douglas  answered — that  is, 
in  his  own  way  he  answered  it.  I  believe  that, 
although  he  took  a  good  many  words  to  answer 
it,  it  was  little  more  fully  answered  than  any 
other.  The  substance  of  his  answer  was  that  this 
country  would  continue  to  expand — that  it  would 
need  additional  territory — that  it  was  as  absurd 


74  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

to  suppose  that  we  could  continue  upon  our  pres- 
ent territory,  enlarging  in  population  as  we  are, 
as  it  would  be  to  hoop  a  boy  twelve  years  of  age, 
and  expect  him  to  grow  to  man's  size  without 
bursting  the  hoops.  I  believe  it  was  something 
like  that.  Consequently  he  was  in  favor  of  the 
acquisition  of  further  territory,  as  fast  as  we 
might  need  it,  in  disregard  of  how  it  might  affect 
the  slavery  question.  I  do  not  say  this  as  giving 
his  exact  language,  but  he  said  so  substantially, 
and  he  would  leave  the  question  of  slavery  where 
the  territory  was  acquired,  to  be  settled  by  the 
people  of  the  acquired  territory.  [''That's  the 
doctrine/'  ]  Maybe  it  is  ;  let  us  consider  that  for 
a  while.  This  will  probably,  in  the  run  of  things, 
become  one  of  the  concrete  manifestations  of 
this  slavery  question.  If  Judge  Douglas's  policy 
upon  this  question  succeeds  and  gets  fairly  settled 
down  until  all  opposition  is  crushed  out,  the  next 
thing  will  be  a  grab  for  the  territory  of  poor 
Mexico,  an  invasion  of  the  rich  lands  of  South 
America,  then  the  adjoining  islands  will  follow, 
each  one  of  which  promises  additional  slave- 
fields.  And  this  question  is  to  be  left  to  the 
people  of  those  countries  for  settlement.  When 
we  shall  get  Mexico,  I  don't  know  whether  the 
judge  will  be  in  favor  of  the  Mexican  people 
that  we  get  with  it  settling  that  question  for 
themselves  and  all  others ;  because  we  know  the 
judge  has  a  great  horror  for  mongrels,  and  I 
understand  that  the  people  of  Mexico  are  most 
decidedly  a  race  of  mongrels.  I  understand  that 
there  is  not  more  than  one  person  there  out  of 
eight  who  is  a  pure  white,  and  I  suppose  from  the 
judge's  previous  declaration  that  when  we  get 
Mexico,  or  any  considerable  portion  of  it,  he  will 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  75 

be  in  favor  of  these  mongrels  settling  the  ques- 
tion, which  would  bring  him  somewhat  into  col- 
lision with  his  horror  of  an  inferior  race. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  though,  that  this  power 
of  acquiring  additional  territory  is  a  power  con- 
fided to  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  a  power  not  under  the  control  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people  any  further  than 
they,  the  President  and  the  Senate,  can  be  con- 
sidered the  representatives  of  the  people.  Let  me 
illustrate  that  by  a  case  we  have  in  our  history. 
When  we  acquired  the  territory  from  Mexico  in 
the  Mexican  war,  the  House  of  Representatives, 
composed  of  the  immediate  representatives  of 
the  people,  all  the  time  insisted  that  the  territory 
thus  to  be  acquired  should  be  brought  in  upon 
condition  that  slavery  should  be  forever  pro- 
hibited therein,  upon  the  terms  and  in  the  lan- 
guage that  slavery  had  been  prohibited  from 
coming  into  this  country.  That  was  insisted 
upon  constantly,  and  never  failed  to  call  forth 
an  assurance  that  any  territory  thus  acquired 
should  have  that  prohibition  in  it,  so  far  as  the 
House  of  Representatives  was  concerned.  But 
at  last  the  President  and  Senate  acquired  the 
territory  without  asking  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives anything  about  it,  and  took  it  without 
that  prohibition.  They  have  the  power  of  ac- 
quiring territory  without  the  immediate  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  being  called  upon  to  say 
anything  about  it,  thus  furnishing  a  very  apt  and 
powerful  means  of  bringing  new  territory  into 
the  Union,  and,  when  it  is  once  brought  into  the 
country,  involving  us  anew  in  this  slavery  agita- 
tion. It  is  therefore,  as  I  think,  a  very  important 
question  for  the  consideration  of  the  American 


7!6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

people,  whether  the  poHcy  of  bringing  in  addi- 
tional territory,  without  considering  at  all  how 
it  will  operate  upon  the  safety  of  the  Union  in 
reference  to  this  one  great  disturbing  element  in 
our  national  politics,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  pol- 
icy of  the  country.  You  will  bear  in  mind  that 
it  is  to  be  acquired,  according  to  the  judge's 
view,  as  fast  as  it  is  needed,  and  the  indefinite 
part  of  this  proposition  is  that  we  have  only 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  class  of  men  to  decide 
how  fast  it  is  needed.  We  have  no  clear  and 
certain  way  of  determining  or  demonstrating  how 
fast  territory  is  needed  by  the  necessities  of  the 
country.  Whoever  wants  to  go  out  filbustering, 
then,  thinks  that  more  territory  is  needed. 
Whoever  wants  wider  slave-fields  feels  sure  that 
some  additional  territory  is  needed  as  slave  ter- 
ritory. Then  it  is  as  easy  to  show  the  necessity 
of  additional  slave  territory  as  it  is  to  assert  any- 
thing that  is  incapable  of  absolute  demonstra- 
tion. Whatever  motive  a  man  or  a  set  of  men 
may  have  for  making  annexation  of  property  or 
territory,  it  is  very  easy  to  assert,  but  much  less 
easy  to  disprove,  that  it  is  necessary  for  the 
wants  of  the  country. 

And  now  it  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  I 
think  it  is  a  very  grave  question  for  the  people 
of  this  Union  to  consider  whether,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  this  slavery  question  has  been  the  only 
one  that  has  ever  endangered  our  republican  in- 
stitutions— the  only  one  that  has  ever  threatened 
or  menaced  a  dissolution  of  the  Union — that  has 
ever  disturbed  us  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  us 
fear  for  the  perpetuity  of  our  liberty — in  view  of 
these  facts,  I  think  it  is  an  exceedingly  interest- 
ing and   important  question   for  this   people  to 


1858]  AT  GALESBURG  77 

consider  ^vhether  we  shall  engage  in  the  policy 
of  acquiring  additional  territory,  discarding  alto- 
gether from  our  consideration,  while  obtaining 
new  territory,  the  question  how  it  may  affect  us 
in  regard  to  this  the  only  endangering  element 
to  our  liberties  and  national  greatness.  The 
judge's  view  has  been  expressed.  I,  in  my  answer 
to  his  question,  have  expressed  mine.  I  think  it 
will  become  an  important  and  practical  question. 
Our  views  are  before  the  public.  I  am  willing 
and  anxious  that  they  should  consider  them  fully 
— that  they  should  turn  it  about  and  consider  the 
importance  of  the  question,  and  arrive  at  a  just 
conclusion  as  to  whether  it  is  or  is  not  wise  in 
the  people  of  this  Union,  in  the  acquisition  of 
new  territory,  to  consider  whether  it  will  add  to 
the  disturbance  that  is  existing  among  us — 
whether  it  will  add  to  the  one  only  danger  that 
has  ever  threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union 
or  our  own  Hberties.  I  think  it  is  extremely 
important  that  they  shall  decide,  and  rightly  de- 
cide, that  question  before  entering  upon  that 
policy. 

And  now,  my  friends,  having  said  the  little  I 
wish  to  say  upon  this  head,  whether  I  have  occu- 
pied the  whole  of  the  remnant  of  my  time  or  not, 
I  believe  I  could  not  enter  upon  any  new  topic 
so  as  to  treat  it  fully  without  transcending  my 
time,  which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of 
doing.    I  give  way  to  Judge  Douglas. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder. 

Gentlemen:  The  highest  compliment  you  can  pay  me 
during  the  brief  half-hour  that  I  have  to  conclude  is  by 
observing  a  strict  silence.  I  desire  to  be  heard  rather 
than  to  be  applauded. 


78  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  7 

The  first  criticism  that  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  on  my 
speech  was  that  it  was  in  substance  what  I  have  said 
everywhere  else  in  the  State  where  I  have  addressed 
the  people.  I  wish  I  could  say  the  same  of  his  speech. 
Why,  the  reason  I  complain  of  him  is  because  he 
makes  one  speech  north  and  another  south.  Because 
he  has  one  set  of  sentiments  for  the  Abolition  counties, 
and  another  set  for  the  counties  opposed  to  Abolition- 
ism. My  point  of  complaint  against  him  is  that  I 
cannot  induce  him  to  hold  up  the  same  standard,  to 
carry  the  same  flag  in  all  parts  of  the  State.  He  does 
not  pretend,  and  no  other  man  will,  that  I  have  one  set 
of  principles  for  Galesburg  and  another  for  Charles-' 
ton.  He  does  not  pretend  that  I  hold  to  one  doctrine 
in  Chicago  and  an  opposite  one  in  Jonesboro.  I  have 
proved  that  he  has  a  different  set  of  principles  for 
each  of  these  localities.  All  I  asked  of  him  was  that 
he  should  deliver  the  speech  that  he  has  made  here  to- 
day in  Coles  County  instead  of  in  old  Knox.  It  would 
have  settled  the  question  between  us  in  that  doubtful 
county.  Here  I  understand  him  to  reaffirm  the  doc- 
trine of  negro  equality,  and  to  assert  that  by  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  the  negro  is  declared  equal 
to  the  white  man.  He  tells  you  to-day  that  the  negro 
was  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  when 
it  asserted  that  all  men  were  created  equal.  ['We 
believe  it."]     Very  well. 

Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  to-day,  as  he  did  at  Chicago, 
that  the  negro  was  included  in  that  clause  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  which  says  that  all  men 
were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  the  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  If  the  negro  was  made 
his  equal  and  mine,  if  that  equality  was  established  by 
divine  law,  and  was  the  negro's  inalienable  right,  how 
came  he  to  say  at  Charleston  to  the  Kentuckians  resid- 
ing in  that  section  of  our  State,  that  the  negro  was 
physically  inferior  to  the  white  man,  belonged  to  an 
inferior  race,  and  he  was  for  keeping  him  always  in 
that  inferior  condition?  I  wish  you  to  bear  these  things 
in  mind.  At  Charleston  he  said  that  the  negro  be- 
longed to  an  inferior  race,  and  that  he  was  for  keep- 
ing him  in  that  inferior  condition.  There  he  gave  the 
people  to  understand  that  there  was  no  moral  ques- 
tion involved,  because  the  inferiority  being  established, 


i8s8]  AT  GALESBURG  79 

it  was  only,  a  question  of  degree  and  not  a  question  of 
right;  here,  to-day,  instead  of  making  it  a  question  of 
degree,  he  makes  it  a  moral  question,  says  that  it  is  a 
great  crime  to  hold  the  negro  in  that  inferior  condi- 
tion. {''He's  right."]  Is  he  right  now,  or  was  he  right 
in  Charleston?  [''Doth."]  He  is  right  then,  sir,  in 
your  estimation,  not  because  he  is  consistent,  but  be- 
cause he  can  trim  his  principles  any  way  in  any  section, 
so  as  to  secure  votes.  All  I  desire  of  him  is  that  he 
will  declare  the  same  principles  in  the  south  that  he 
does  in  the  north. 

But  did  you  notice  how  he  answered  my  position 
that  a  man  should  hold  the  same  doctrines  throughoui 
the  length  and  breadth  of  this  republic?  He  said, 
"Would  Judge  Douglas  go  to  Russia  and  proclaim  the 
same  principles  he  does  here?"  I  would  remind  him 
that  Russia  is  not  under  the  American  Constitution. 
If  Russia  was  a  part  of  the  American  republic,  under 
our  Federal  Constitution,  and  I  was  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution,  I  would  maintain  the  same  doctrine 
in  Russia  that  I  do  in  Illinois.  The  slave-holding 
States  are  governed  by  the  same  Federal  Constitution 
as  ourselves,  and  hence  a  man's  principles,  in  order  to 
be  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  must  be  the  same 
in  the  South  as  they  are  in  the  North,  the  same  in  the 
free  States  as  they  are  in  the  slave  States.  Whenever 
a  man  advocates  one  set  of  principles  in  one  section, 
and  another  set  in  another  section,  his  opinions  are  in 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  which  he  has 
sworn  to  support.  When  Mr.  Lincoln  went  to  Con- 
gress in  1847,  and,  laying  his  hand  upon  the  Holy 
Evangelists,  made  a  solemn  vow  in  the  presence  of 
high  Heaven  that  he  would  be  faithful  to  the  Constitu- 
tion— what  did  he  mean — the  Constitution  as  he  ex- 
pounds it  in  Galesburg,  or  the  Constitution  as  he  ex- 
pounds it  in  Charleston? 

_  Mr.  Lincoln  has  devoted  considerable  time  to  the 
circumstance  that  at  Ottawa  I  read  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions as  having  been  adopted  at  Springfield,  in  this 
State,  on  the  4th  or  5th  of  October,  1854,  which 
happened  not  to  have  been  adopted  there.  He  has 
used  hard  names;  has  dared  to  talk  about  fraud,  about 
forgery,  and  has  insinuated  that  there  was  a  conspiracy 
between  Mr.  Lanphier,  Mr.  Harris,  and  myself  to 
perpetrate  a  forgery.     Now,  bear  in  mind  that  he  does 


8o 


DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS 


[Oct.  7 


not  deny  that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  in  a 
majority  of  all  Republican  counties  of  this  State  in 
that  year;  he  does  not  deny  that  they  were  declared  to 
be  the  platform  of  this  Republican  party  in  the  first 
congressional  district,  in  the  second,  in  the  third,  and 
in  many  counties  of  the  fourth,  and  that  they  thus  be- 
came the  platform  of  his  party  in  a  majority  of  the 
counties  upon  which  he  now  relies  for  support;  he  does 
not  deny  the  truthfulness  of  the  resolutions,  but  takes 
exception  to  the  spot  on  which  they  were  adopted.  He 
takes  to  himself  great  merit  because  he  thinks  they 
were  not  adopted  on  the  right  spot  for  me  to  use  them 
against  him,  just  as  he  was  very  severe  in  Congress 
upon  the  government  of  his  country,  when  he  thought 
that  he  had  discovered  that  the  Mexican  war  was  not 
begun  in  the  right  spot,  and  was  therefore  unjust.  He 
tries  very  hard  to  make  out  that  there  is  something 
very  extraordinary  in  the  place  where  the  thing  was 
done,  and  not  in  the  thing  itself.  I  never  believed  be- 
fore that  Abraham  Lincoln  would  be  guilty  of  what 
he  has  done  this  day  in  regard  to  those  resolutions. 
In  the  first  place,  the  moment  it  was  intimated  to  me 
that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Aurora  and  Rockford 
instead  of  Springfield,  I  did  not  wait  for  him  to  call 
my  attention  to  the  fact,  but  led  ofif  and  explained  in 
my  first  meeting  after  the  Ottawa  debate,  what  the 
mistake  was  and  how  it  had  been  made.  I  supposed 
that  for  an  honest  man,  conscious  of  his  own  rectitude, 
that  explanation  would  be  sufficient.  I  did  not  wait 
for  him,  after  the  mistake  was  made,  to  call  my  atten- 
tion to  it,  but  frankly  explained  it  at  once  as  an  honest 
man  would.  I  also  gave  the  authority  on  which  I  had 
stated  that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the 
Springfield  Republican  convention;  that  I  had  seen 
them  quoted  by  Major  Harris  in  a  debate  in  Congress, 
as  having  been  adopted  by  the  first  Republican  State 
convention  in  Illinois,  and  that  I  had  written  to  him 
and  asked  him  for  the  authority  as  to  the  time  and 
place  of  their  adoption;  that  Major  Harris  being  ex- 
tremely ill,  Charles  H.  Lanphier  had  written  to  me  for 
him  that  they  were  adopted  at  Springfield,  on  the  5th 
of  October,  1854,  and  had  sent  me  a  copy  of  the 
Springfield  paper  containing  them.  I  read  them  from 
the  newspaper  just  as  Mr.  Lincoln  reads  the  proceed- 
ings of  meetings  held  years  ago  from  the  newspapers^ 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  8i 

After  giving  that  explanation,  I  did  not  think  there 
was  an  honest  man  in  the  State  of  IlHnois  who  doubted 
that  I  had  been  led  into  the  error,  if  it  was  such, 
innocently,  in  the  way  I  detailed;  and  I  will  now  say 
that  I  do  not  now  believe  that  there  is  an  honest  man 
on  the  face  of  the  globe  who  will  not  regard  with 
abhorrence  and  disgust  Mr.  Lincoln's  insinuations  of 
my  complicity  in  that  forgery,  if  it  was  a  forgery. 
Does  Mr.  Lincoln  wish  to  push  these  things  to  the 
point  of  personal  difficulties  here?  I  commenced  this 
contest  by  treating  him  courteously  and  kindly;  1 
always  spoke  of  him  in  words  of  respect,  and  in  return 
he  has  sought,  and  is  now  seeking,  to  divert  public  at- 
tention from  the  enormity  of  his  revolutionary  priii^ 
ciples  by  impeaching  men's  sincerity  and  integrity,  afid 
inviting  personal  quarrels. 

I  desired  to  conduct  this  contest  with  him  like  a 
gentleman,  but  I  spurn  the  insinuation  of  complicity 
and  fraud  made  upon  the  simple  circumstance  of  an 
editor  of  a  newspaper  having  made  a  mistake  as  to 
the  place  where  a  thing  was  done,  but  not  as  to  the 
thing  itself.  These  resolutions  were  the  platform  of 
this  Republican  party  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  of  that  year. 
They  were  adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  Republican 
counties  in  the  State;  and  when  I  asked  him  at  Ottawa 
whether  they  formed  the  platform  upon  which  he 
stood,  he  did  not  answer,  and  I  could  not  get  an  answer 
out  of  him.  He  then  thought,  as  I  thought,  that  those 
resolutions  were  adopted  at  the  Springfield  convention, 
but  excused  himself  by  saying  that  he  was  not  there 
when  they  were  adopted,  but  had  gone  to  Tazewell 
court  in  order  to  avoid  being  present  at  the  convention. 
He  saw  them  published  as  having  been  adopted  at 
Springfield,  and  so  did  I,  and  he  knew  that  if  there  was 
a  mistake  in  regard  to  them,  that  I  had  nothing  under 
heaven  to  do  with  it.  Besides,  you  find  that  in  all  these 
northern  counties  where  the  Republican  candidates  are 
running  pledged  to  him,  that  the  conventions  which 
nominated  them  adopted  that  identical  platform.  One 
cardinal  point  in  that  platform  which  he  shrinks  from 
is  this — that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States  ad- 
mited  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them. 
Lovejoy  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any 
more  slave  States.  [''Right;  so  do  zve."]  So  do  you, 
you  say.     Farnsworth  stands  pledged  against  the  ad- 


82  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS  [Oct.  r 

mission  of  any  more  slave  States.  Washburne  stands 
pledged  the  same  way.  The  candidate  for  the  legis- 
lature who  is  running  on  Lincoln's  ticket  in  Henderson 
and  Warren  stands  committed  by  his  vote  in  the  legis- 
lature to  the  same  thing,  and  I  am  informed,  but  do  not 
know  of  the  fact,  that  your  candidate  here  is  also  so 
pledged.  ["Hurrah  for  him!  Good.'"]  Now,  you 
Republicans  all  hurrah  for  him,  and  for  the  doctrine 
of  "no  more  slave  States,"  and  yet  Lincoln  tells  you 
that  his  conscience  will  not  permit  him  to  sanction 
that  doctrine,  and  complains  because  the  resolutions 
I  read  at  Ottawa  made  him,  as  a  member  of  the  party, 
responsible  for  sanctioning  the  doctrine  of  no  more 
slave  States.  You  are  one  way,  you  confess,  and  he  is 
or  pretends  to  be  the  other,  and  yet  you  are  both 
governed  by  principle  in  supporting  one  another.  If  it 
be  true,  as  I  have  shown  it  is,  that  the  whole  Republican 
party  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  stands  com- 
mitted to  the  doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States,  and 
that  this  same  doctrine  is  repudiated  by  the  Republi- 
cans in  the  other  part  of  the  State,  I  wonder  whether 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  do  not  present  the  case 
which  he  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  of  a  house  divided 
against  itself  which  cannot  stand!  I  desire  to  know 
what  are  Mr.  Lincoln's  principles  and  the  principles  of 
his  party.  I  hold,  and  the  party  with  which  I  am 
identified  holds,  that  the  people  of  each  State,  old  and 
new,  have  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves,  and  when  I  used  the  remark  that  I  did  not 
care  whether  slavery  was  voted  up  or  down,  I  used  it 
in  the  connection  that  I  was  for  allowing  Kansas  to 
do  just  as  she  pleased  on  the  slavery  question.  I  said 
that  I  did  not  care  whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or 
down,  because  they  had  the  right  to  do  as  they  pleased 
on  the  question,  and  therefore  my  action  would  not  be 
controlled  by  any  such  consideration.  Why  cannot 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the  party  with  which  he  acts, 
speak  out  their  principles  so  that  they  may  be  under- 
stood? Why  do  they  claim  to  be  one  thing  in  one  part 
of  the  State  and  another  in  the  other  part?  Whenever 
I  allude  to  the  Abolition  doctrines,  which  he  considers 
a  slander  to  be  charged  with  being  in  favor  of,  you 
all  indorse  them,  and  hurrah  for  them,  not  knowing 
that  your  candidate  is  ashamed  to  acknowledge  them. 
I   have  a   few  words   to   say   upon  the   Dred   Scott 


i858]  AT  GALESBURG  83 

decision,  which  has  troubled  the  brain  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
so   much.     He  insists  that  that  decision  would  carry 
slavery  into  the  free  States,  notwithstanding  that  the 
decision   says   directly  the   opposite;   and   goes   into   a 
long  argument  to  make  you  believe  that  I  am  ni  favor 
of,  and  would  sanction,  the  doctrine  that  would  allow 
slaves  to  be  brought  here  and  held  as  slaves  contrary 
to    our    constitution    and    laws.     Mr.    Lincoln    knew 
better  when  he  asserted  this;  he  knew  that  one  news- 
paper, and  so  far  as  is  within  my  knowledge  but  one, 
ever  asserted  that  doctrine,   and  that   I   was   the   first 
man  in  either  House  of  Congress  that  read  that  article 
in  debate,  and  denounced  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
as    revolutionary.     When    the    Washington    Union,    on 
the  17th  of  last  November,  published  an  article  to  that 
effect,    I    branded   it   at   once,    and    denounced   it,    and 
hence    the    Union    has    been    pursuing    me    ever    since. 
Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  replied  to  me,  and  said  that 
there  was  not  a  man  in  any  of  the  slave  States  south 
of   the    Potomac    River   that   held   any    such   doctrine. 
Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  there  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Supreme    Court   who   holds   that   doctrine;    he   knows 
that  every  one  of  them,   as   shown  by  their  opinions, 
holds  the  reverse.     Why  this  attempt,   then,  to  bring 
the  Supreme  Court  into  disrepute  among  the  people? 
It  looks  as  if  there  was  an  efifort  being  made  to  destroy 
public   confidence   in   the  highest  judicial  tribunal   on 
earth.       Suppose    he    succeeds    in    destroying    public 
confidence   in   the  court,   so   that   the   people   will   not 
respect   its    decisions,   but   will   feel   at   liberty  to   dis- 
regard them,  and  resist  the  laws  of  the  land,  what  will 
he  have  gained?     He  will  have  changed  the   govern- 
ment from  one  of  laws  into  that  of  a  mob,  in  which  the 
strong    arm    of    violence    will    be    substituted    for    the 
decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice.     He  complains  be- 
cause I  did  not  go  into  an  argument  reviewing  Chief 
Justice  Taney's  opinion,  and  the  other  opinions  of  the 
different  judges,  to  determine  whether  their  reasoning 
is  right  or  wrong  on  the  questions  of  law.     What  use 
would  that  be?     He  wants  to  take  an  appeal  from  the 
Supreme  Court  to  this  meeting  to  determine  whether 
the    questions    of   law    were   decided   properly.     He   is 
going  to  appeal  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  every  town  meeting,  in  the  hope  that  he  can 
excite  a  prejudice  against  that  court,  and  on  the  wave 


84  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

of  that  prejudice  ride  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  when  he  could  not  get  there  on  his  own  prin- 
ciples, or  his  own  merits.  Suppose  he  should  succeed 
in  getting  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  what 
then  will  he  have  to  do  with  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case?  Can  he 
reverse  that  decision  when  he  gets  there?  Can  he  act 
upon  it?  Has  the  Senate  any  right  to  reverse  it  or  re- 
vise it?  He  will  not  pretend  that  it  has.  Then  why- 
drag  the  matter  into  this  contest,  unless  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  a  false  issue,  by  which  he  can  divert 
public  attention  from  the  real  issue. 

He  has  cited  General  Jackson  in  justification  of  the 
war  he  is  making  on  the  decision  of  the  court.  Mr. 
Lincoln  misunderstands  the  history  of  the  country  if 
he  believes  there  is  any  parallel  in  the  two  cases.  It 
is  true  that  the  Supreme  Court  once  decided  that  if  a 
bank  of  the  United  States  was  a  necessary  fiscal  agent 
of  the  government  it  was  constitutional,  and  if  not, 
that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  also,  that  whether  or 
not  it  was  necessary  for  that  purpose  was  a  political 
question  for  Congress,  and  not  a  judicial  one  for  the 
courts  to  determine.  Hence  the  court  would  not 
determine  the  bank  unconstitutional.  Jackson  re- 
spected the  decision,  obeyed  the  law,  executed  it,  and 
carried  it  into  effect  during  its  existence;  but  after  the 
charter  of  the  bank  expired,  and  a  proposition  was 
made  to  create  a  new  bank.  General  Jackson  said:  "It 
is  unnecessary  and  improper,  and  therefore  I  am 
against  it  on  constitutional  grounds  as  well  as  those 
of  expediency."  Is  Congress  bound  to  pass  every  act 
that  is  constitutional?  Why,  there  are  a  thousand 
things  that  are  constitutional,  but  yet  are  inexpedient 
and  unnecessary,  and  you  surely  would  not  vote  for 
them  merely  because  you  had  the  right  to?  And  be- 
cause General  Jackson  would  not  do  a  thing  which  he 
had  a  right  to  do,  but  did  not  deem  expedient  or 
proper,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  justify  himself  in 
doing  that  which  he  has  no  right  to  do.  I  ask  him 
whether  he  is  not  bound  to  respect  and  obey  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Supreme  Court  as  well  as  I?  The  Con- 
stitution has  created  that  court  to  decide  all  constitu- 
tional questions  in  the  last  resort,  and  when  such 
decisions  have  been  made  they  become  the  law  of  the 
land,   and  you,   and  he,   and  myself,  and  every  other 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  85 

good  citizen  are  bound  by  them.  Yet  he  argues  that 
I  am  bound  by  their  decisions,  and  he  is  not.  He 
says  that  their  decisions  are  binding  on  Democrats, 
but  not  on  Republicans.  Are  not  Republicans  bound 
by  the  laws  of  the  land  as  well  as  Democrats?  And 
when  the  court  has  fixed  the  construction  of 
the  Constitution  on  the  validity  of  a  given  law, 
is  not  their  decision  binding  upon  Republicans  as 
well  as  upon  Democrats?  Is  it  possible  that  you  Re- 
publicans have  the  right  to  raise  your  mobs  and 
oppose  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  constituted  au- 
thorities and  yet  hold  us  Democrats  bound  to  obey 
them?  My  time  is  within  half  a  minute  of  expiring, 
and  all  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  stand  by  the  laws  of  the 
land.  I  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made 
it,  by  the  laws  as  they  are  enacted,  and  by  the  de- 
cisions of  the  court  upon  all  points  within  their  juris- 
diction as  they  are  pronounced  by  the  highest  tribunal 
on  earth;  and  any  man  who  resists  these  must  resort 
to  mob-law  and  violence  to  overturn  the  government 
of  laws. 

Sixth  Joint  Debate,  at  Quincy. 

October  13,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  have  had  no  im- 
mediate conference  with  Judge  Douglas,  but  I 
will  venture  to  say  that  he  and  I  will  perfectly 
agree  that  your  entire  silence,  both  when  I  speak 
and  when  he  speaks,  will  be  most  agreeable  to  us. 

In  the  month  of  May,  1856,  the  elements  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  which  have  since  been  con- 
solidated into  the  Republican  party  assembled 
together  in  a  State  convention  at  Bloomington. 
They  adopted  at  that  time  what,  in  political  lan- 
guage, is  called  a  platform.  In  June  of  the  same 
year,  the  elements  of  the  Republican  party  in  the 
nation  assembled  together  in  a  national  conven- 


86  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

tion  at  Philadelphia.  They  adopted  what  is 
called  the  national  platform.  In  June,  1858, — 
the  present  year, — the  Republicans  of  Illinois  re- 
assembled at  Springfield  in  State  convention,  and 
adopted  again  their  platform,  as  I  suppose,  not 
differing  in  any  essential  particular  from  either 
of  the  former  ones,  but  perhaps  adding  some- 
thing in  relation  to  the  new  developments  of 
political  progress  in  the  country. 

The  convention  that  assembled  in  June  last 
did  me  the  honor,  if  it  be  one,  and  I  esteem  it 
such,  to  nominate  me  as  their  candidate  for  the 
United  States  Senate.  I  have  supposed  that,  in 
entering  upon  this  canvass,  I  stood  generally 
upon  these  platforms.  We  are  now  met  together 
on  the  13th  of  October  of  the  same  year,  only 
four  months  from  the  adoption  of  the  last  plat- 
form, and  I  am  unaware  that  in  this  can- 
vass, from  the  beginning  until  to-day,  any  one 
of  our  adversaries  has  taken  hold  of  our  plat- 
forms, or  laid  his  finger  upon  anything  he  calls 
wrong  in  them. 

In  the  very  first  one  of  these  joint  discussions 
between  Senator  Douglas  and  myself,  Senator 
Douglas,  without  alluding  at  all  to  these  plat- 
forms, or  to  any  one  of  them,  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  attempted  to  hold  me  responsible  for  a 
set  of  resolutions  passed  long  before  the  meeting 
of  either  one  of  these  conventions  of  which  I  have 
spoken.  And  as  a  ground  for  holding  me  re- 
sponsible for  these  resolutions,  he  assumed  that 
they  had  been  passed  at  a  State  convention  of 
the  Republican  party,  and  that  I  took  part  in 
that  convention.  It  was  discovered  afterward 
that  this  was  erroneous,  that  the  resolution  which 
he  endeavored  to  hold  me  responsible  for  had  not 


i85?]  AT  QUINCY  87 

been  passed  by  any  State  convention  anywhere, 
had  not  been  passed  at  Springfield,  where  he 
supposed  they  had,  or  assumed  that  they  had, 
and  that  they  had  been  passed  in  no  convention 
in  which  I  had  taken  part.  The  judge,  neverthe- 
less, was  not  willing  to  give  up  the  point  that  he 
was  endeavoring  to  make  upon  me,  and  he  there- 
fore thought  to  still  hold  me  to  the  point  that  he 
was  endeavoring  to  make,  by  showing  that  the 
resolutions  that  he  read  had  been  passed  at  a 
local  convention  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State, 
although  it  was  not  a  local  convention  that  em- 
braced my  residence  at  all,  nor  one  that  reached, 
as  I  suppose,  nearer  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 
or  two  hundred  miles  of  where  I  was  when  it 
met,  nor  one  in  which  I  took  any  part  at  all.  He 
also  introduced  other  resolutions,  passed  at  other 
meetings,  and  by  combining  the  whole,  although 
they  were  all  antecedent  to  the  two  State  con- 
ventions, and  the  one  national  convention  I  have 
mentioned,  still  he  insisted  and  now  insists,  as 
I  understand,  that  I  am  in  some  way  responsible 
for  them. 

At  Jonesboro,  on  our  third  meeting,  I  insisted 
to  the  judge  that  I  was  in  no  way  rightfully  held 
responsible  for  the  proceedings  of  this  local 
meeting  or  convention  in  which  I  had  taken  no 
part,  and  in  which  I  was  in  no  way  embraced; 
but  I  insisted  to  him  that  if  he  thought  I  was  re- 
sponsible for  every  man  or  every  set  of  men 
everywhere,  who  happen  to  be  my  friends,  the 
rule  ought  to  work  both  ways,  and  he  ought  to  be 
responsible  for  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  all 
men  or  sets  of  men  who  were  or  are  now  his 
supporters  and  friends,  and  gave  him  a  pretty 
long  string  of  resolutions,  passed  by  men  who  are 


88  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

now  his  friends,  and  announcing  doctrines  for 
which  he  does  not  desire  to  be  held  responsible. 

This  still  does  not  satisfy  Judge  Douglas.  He 
still  adheres  to  his  proposition,  that  I  am  re- 
sponsible for  what  some  of  my  friends  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  State  have  done ;  but  that  he  is 
not  responsible  for  what  his  have  done.  At  least, 
so  I  understand  him.  But,  in  addition  to  that, 
the  judge,  at  our  meeting  in  Galesburg  last  week, 
undertakes  to  establish  that  I  am  guilty  of  a 
species  of  double-dealing  with  the  public — that 
I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the  North, 
among  the  Abolitionists,  which  I  would  not  make 
in  the  South,  and  that  I  make  speeches  of  a  cer- 
tain sort  in  the  South  which  I  would  not  make 
in  the  North.  I  apprehend,  in  the  course  I  have 
marked  out  for  myself,  that  I  shall  not  have  to 
dwell  at  very  great  length  upon  this  subject. 

As  this  was  done  in  the  judge's  openine  speech 
at  Galesburg,  I  had  an  opportunity,  as  I  had  the 
middle  speech  then,  of  saying  something  in  an- 
swer to  it.  He  brought  forward  a  quotation  or 
two  from  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  at  Chicago, 
and  then,  to  contrast  with  it,  he  brought  forward 
an  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine  at  Charleston, 
in  which  he  insisted  that  I  was  greatly  inconsist- 
ent, and  insisted  that  his  conclusion  followed  that 
I  was  playing  a  double  part,  and  speaking  in  one 
region  one  way,  and  in  another  region  another 
way.  I  have  not  time  now  to  dwell  on  this  as 
long  as  I  would  like,  and  wish  only  now  to  re- 
quote  that  portion  of  my  speech  at  Charleston, 
which  the  judge  quoted,  and  then  make  some 
comments  upon  it.  This  he  quotes  from  me  as 
being  delivered  at  Charleston,  and  I  believe  cor- 
rectly : 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  89 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been, 
in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races — that  I 
am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters 
or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold 
office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people;  and  I  will 
say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  differ- 
ence between  the  white  and  black  races  which  will  ever 
forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social 
and  political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot 
so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be 
the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I,  as  much 
as  any  other  man,  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior 
position  assigned  to  the  white  race. 

This,  I  believe,  is  the  entire  quotation  from  the 
Charleston  speech,  as  Judge  Douglas  made  it. 
His  comments  are  as  follows : 

Yes,  here  you  find  men  who  hurrah  for  Lincoln,  and 
say  he  is  right  when  he  discards  all  distinction  between 
races,  or  when  he  declares  that  he  discards  the  doc- 
trine that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  superior  and 
inferior  race;  and  Abolitionists  are  required  and  ex- 
pected to  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for 
the  equality  of  races,  holding  that  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  the  white  man  and  negro  were  de- 
clared equal,  and  endowed  by  divine  law  with  equality. 
And  down  South  with  the  old-line  Whigs,  with  the 
Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  and  the  Tennesseeans,  he 
tells  you  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between 
the  races,  making  the  one  superior,  the  other  inferior, 
and  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  of 
the  white  race  over  the  negro. 

Those  are  the  judge's  comments.  Now  I  wish 
to  show  you,  that  a  month,  or  only  lacking  three 
days  of  a  month,  before  I  made  the  speech  at 
Charleston  which  the  judge  quotes  from,  he  had 
himself  heard  me  say  substantially  the  same 
thing.  It  was  in  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa, 
and  I  will  say  a  word  about  where  it  was,  and 
the  atmosphere  it  was  in,  after  a  while — but  at 


90  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa,  I  read  an  extract 
from  an  old  speech  of  mine,  made  nearly  four 
years  ago,  not  merely  to  show  my  sentiments, 
but  to  show  that  my  sentiments  were  long  enter- 
tained and  openly  expressed;  in  which  extract  I 
expressly  declared  that  my  own  feelings  would 
not  admit  of  a  social  and  political  equality  be- 
tween the  white  and  black  races,  and  that  even 
if  my  own  feelings  would  admit  of  it,  I  still  knew 
that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country  would 
not,  and  that  such  a  thing  was  an  utter  impossi- 
bility, or  substantially  that.  That  extract  from 
my  old  speech,  the  reporters,  by  some  sort  of  ac- 
cident, passed  over,  and  it  was  not  reported.  I 
lay  no  blame  upon  anybody.  I  suppose  they 
thought  that  I  would  hand  it  over  to  them,  and 
dropped  reporting  while  I  was  reading  it,  but 
afterward  went  away  without  getting  it  from 
me.  At  the  end  of  that  quotation  from  my  old 
speech,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa,  I  made  the  com- 
ments which  were  reported  at  that  time,  and 
which  I  will  now  read,  and  ask  you  to  notice 
how  very  nearly  they  are  the  same  as  Judge 
Douglas  says  were  delivered  by  me,  down  in 
Eg}'pt.     After  reading  I  added  these  words : 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater 
length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have 
ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  the 
black  race,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it;  and  anything 
that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and 
political  equality  with  the  negro  is  but  a  specious  and 
fantastical  arrangement  of  words  by  which  a  man  can 
prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will 
say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  pur- 
pose, directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I 
believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no 
inclination  to  do  so.     I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  91 

political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and 
black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between 
the  two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever 
forbid  their  living  together  on  the  footing  of  perfect 
equality,  and,  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that 
there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas, 
am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having 
the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said  anything  to 
the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not 
entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumerated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence — the  right  to  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as 
much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with 
Judge  Douglas  that  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many 
respects,  certainly  not  in  color — perhaps  not  in  intel- 
lectual and  moral  endowments;  but  in  the  right  to  eat 
the  bread,  without  the  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his 
own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of 
Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man. 

I  have  chiefly  introduced  this  for  the  purpose 
of  meeting  the  judge's  charge  that  the  quotation 
he  took  from  my  Charleston  speech  was  what  I 
would  say  down  south  among  the  Kentuckians, 
the  Virginians,  etc.,  but  would  not  say  in  the 
regions  in  which  was  supposed  to  be  more  of 
the  Abolition  element.  I  now  make  this  com- 
ment :  that  speech  from  which  I  have  now  read 
the  quotation,  and  which  is  there  given  correctly, 
perhaps  too  much  so  for  good  taste,  was  made 
away  up  north  in  the  AboHtion  district  of  this 
State  par  excellence — in  the  Lovejoy  district — 
in  the  personal  presence  of  Lovejoy ;  for  he  was 
on  the  stand  with  us  when  I  made  it.  It  had 
been  made  and  put  in  print  in  that  region  only 
three  days  less  than  a  month  before  the  speech 
made  at  Charleston,  the  like  of  which  Judge 
Douglas  thinks  I  would  not  make  where  there 
was  any  Abolition  element.     I  only  refer  to  this 


92  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

matter  to  say  that  I  am  altogether  unconscious 
of  having  attempted  any  double-dealing  any- 
where; that  upon  one  occasion  I  may  say  one 
thing  and  leave  other  things  unsaid,  and  vice 
versa;  but  that  I  have  said  anything  on  one  oc- 
casion that  is  inconsistent  with  what  I  have  said 
elsewhere,  I  deny — at  least,  I  deny  it  so  far  as 
the  intention  is  concerned.  I  find  that  I  have  de- 
voted to  this  topic  a  larger  portion  of  my  time 
than  I  had  intended.  I  wished  to  show — but  I 
will  pass  it  upon  this  occasion — that  in  the  senti- 
ment I  have  occasionally  advanced  upon  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  I  am  entirely  borne 
out  by  the  sentiments  advanced  by  our  old  Whig 
leader,  Henry  Clay,  and  I  have  the  book  here  to 
show  it  from ;  but  because  I  have  already  occu- 
pied more  time  than  I  intended  to  do  on  that 
topic,  I  pass  over  it. 

At  Galesburg  I  tried  to  show  that  by  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  pushed  to  its  legitimate  conse- 
quences, slavery  would  be  established  in  all  the 
States  as  well  as  in  the  Territories.  I  did  this 
because,  upon  a  former  occasion,  I  had  asked 
Judge  Douglas  whether,  if  the  Supreme  Court 
should  make  a  decision  declaring  that  the  States 
had  not  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  he  would  adopt  and  follow  that  decision 
as  a  rule  of  political  action ;  and  because  he  had 
not  directly  answered  that  question,  but  had 
merely  contented  himself  with  sneering  at  it,  I 
again  introduced  it,  and  tried  to  show  that  the 
conclusion  that  I  stated  followed  inevitably  and 
logically  from  the  proposition  already  decided 
by  the  court.  Judge  Douglas  had  the  privilege 
of  replying  to  me  at  Galesburg,  and  again  he 
gave  me  no  direct  answer  as  to  whether  he  would 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  93 

or  would  not  sustain  such  decision  if  made.  I 
give  him  this  third  chance  to  say  yes  or  no.  He 
is  not  obHged  to  do  either, — probably  he  will  not 
do  either, — but  I  give  him  the  third  chance.  I 
tried  to  show  then  that  this  result,  this  conclu- 
sion, inevitably  followed  from  the  point  already 
decided  by  the  court.  The  judge,  in  his  reply, 
again  sneers  at  the  thought  of  the  court  making 
any  such  decision,  and  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks upon  this  subject,  uses  the  language 
which  I  will  now  read.  Speaking  of  me,  the 
judge  says :  *'He  goes  on  and  insists  that  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  would  carry  slavery  into  the 
free  States,  notwithstanding  the  decision  itself 
says  the  contrary."  And  he  adds :  "Mr.  Lin- 
coln knows  that  there  is  no  member  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  that  holds  that  doctrine.  He  knows 
that  every  one  of  them  in  their  opinions  held  the 
reverse." 

I  especially  introduce  this  subject  again  for 
the  purpose  of  saying  that  I  have  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  here,  and  I  will  thank  Judge  Douglas  to 
lay  his  finger  upon  the  place  in  the  entire  opin- 
ions of  the  court  where  any  one  of  them  "says 
the  contrary."  It  is  very  hard  to  affirm  a  nega- 
tive with  entire  confidence.  I  say,  however,  that 
I  have  examined  that  decision  with  a  good  deal 
of  care,  as  a  lawyer  examines  a  decision,  and  so 
far  as  I  have  been  able  to  do  so,  the  court  has 
nowhere  in  its  opinions  said  that  the  States  have 
the  power  to  exclude  slavery,  nor  have  they  used 
other  language  substantially  that.  I  also  say, 
so  far  as  I  can  find,  not  one  of  the  concurring 
judges  has  said  that  the  States  can  exclude  slav- 
ery, nor  said  anything  that  was  substantially 
that.    The  nearest  approach  that  any  one  of  them 


94  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

has  made  to  it,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  was  by  Judge 
Nelson,  and  the  approach  he  made  to  it  was  ex- 
actly, in  substance,  the  Nebraska  bill — that  the 
States  had  the  exclusive  power  over  the  question 
of  slavery,  so  far  as  they  are  not  limiited  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  ask  the 
question,  therefore,  if  the  non-concurring 
judges,  McLean  or  Curtis,  had  asked  to  get  an 
express  declaration  that  the  States  could  abso« 
lutely  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  what 
reason  have  we  to  believe  that  it  would  not  have 
been  voted  down  by  the  majority  of  the  judges, 
just  as  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down  by 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  compeers  when  it  was 
offered  to  the  Nebraska  bill  ? 

Also  at  Galesburg  I  said  something  in  regard 
to  those  Springfield  resolutions  that  Judge  Doug- 
las had  attempted  to  use  upon  me  at  Ottawa,  and 
commented  at  some  length  upon  the  fact  that  they 
were,  as  presented,  not  genuine.  Judge  Doug- 
las in  his  reply  to  me  seemed  to  be  somewhat  ex- 
asperated. He  said  he  never  would  have  be- 
lieved that  Abraham  Lincoln,  as  he  kindly  called 
me,  would  have  attempted  such  a  thing  as  I  had 
attempted  upon  that  occasion ;  and  among  other 
expressions  which  he  used  toward  me,  was  that 
I  dared  to  say  forgery — that  I  had  dared 
to  say  forgery  [turning  to  Judge  Douglas]. 
Yes,  judge,  I  did  dare  to  say  forgery.  But 
in  this  political  canvass  the  judge  ought  to  re- 
member that  I  was  not  the  first  who  dared  to 
say  forgery.  At  Jacksonville  Judge  Douglas 
made  a  speech  in  answer  to  something  said  by 
Judge  Trumbull,  and  at  the  close  of  what  he  said 
Upon  that  subject,  he  dared  to  say  that  Trumbull 
had  forged  his  evidence.     He  said,  too,  that  he 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  95 

should  not  concern  himself  with  Trumbull  any 
more,  but  thereafter  he  should  hold  Lincoln  re- 
sponsible for  the  slanders  upon  him.  When  I 
met  him  at  Charleston  after  that,  although  I 
think  that  I  should  not  have  noticed  the  subject 
if  he  had  not  said  he  would  hold  me  responsible 
for  it,  I  spread  out  before  him  the  statements  of 
the  evidence  that  Judge  Trumbull  had  used,  and 
I  asked  Judge  Douglas,  piece  by  piece,  to  put  his 
finger  upon  one  piece  of  all  that  evidence  that  he 
would  say  was  a  forgery.  When  I  went  through 
with  each  and  every  piece.  Judge  Douglas  did 
not  dare  then  to  say  that  any  piece  of  it  was  a 
forgery.  So  it  seems  that  there  are  some  things 
that  Judge  Douglas  dares  to  do,  and  some  that 
he  dares  not  to  do.  [A  voice:  ''It's  the  same 
thing  with  you/']  Yes,  sir,  it's  the  same  thing 
with  me. 

I  do  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  true,  and 
don't  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  false.  Now, 
I  will  say  here  to  this  audience  and  to  Judge 
Douglas,  I  have  not  dared  to  say  he  committed 
a  forgery,  and  I  never  shall  until  I  know  it ;  but 
I  did  dare  to  say — just  to  suggest  to  the  judge 
— that  a  forgery  had  been  committed,  which  by 
his  own  showing  had  been  traced  to  him  and  two 
of  his  friends.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  he 
had  expressly  promised  in  one  of  his  public 
speeches  to  investigate  that  matter,  and  I  dared 
to  suggest  to  him  that  there  was  an  implied 
promise  that  when  he  investigated  it  he  would 
make  known  the  result.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  the 
judge  that  he  could  not  expect  to  be  quite  clear 
of  suspicion  of  that  fraud,  for  since  the  time  that 
promise  was  made  he  had  been  with  those 
friends,  and  had  not  kept  his  promise  in  regard 


96  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

to  the  investigation  and  the  report  upon  it.  I 
am  not  a  very  daring  man,  but  I  dared  that 
much,  judge,  and  I  am  not  much  scared  about  it 
yet.  When  the  judge  says  he  wouldn't  have 
believed  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that  he  would  have 
made  such  an  attempt  as  that,  he  reminds  me  of 
the  fact  that  he  entered  upon  this  canvass  with 
the  purpose  to  treat  me  courteously ;  that  touched 
me  somewhat.  It  set  me  to  thinking.  I  was 
aware,  when  it  was  first  agreed  that  Judge  Doug- 
las and  I  were  to  have  these  seven  joint 
discussions,  that  they  were  the  successive  acts  of 
a  drama — perhaps  I  should  say,  to  be  enacted 
not  merely  in  the  face  of  audiences  like  this,  but 
in  the  face  of  the  nation,  and  to  some  extent,  by 
my  relation  to  him,  and  not  from  anything  in  my- 
self, in  the  face  of  the  world;  and  I  am  anxious 
that  they  should  be  conducted  with  dignity  and 
in  the  good  temper  which  would  be  befitting  the 
vast  audience  before  which  it  was  conducted. 
But  when  Judge  Douglas  got  home  from  Wash- 
ington and  made  his  first  speech  in  Chicago,  the 
evening  afterward  I  made  some  sort  of  a  reply 
to  it.  His  second  speech  was  made  at  Bloom- 
ington,  in  which  he  commented  upon  my  speech 
at  Chicago,  and  said  that  I  had  used  language  in- 
geniously contrived  to  conceal  my  intentions,  or 
words  to  that  effect.  Now  I  understand  that  this 
is  an  imputation  upon  my  veracity  and  my  can- 
dor. I  do  not  know  what  the  judge  understood 
by  it,  but  in  our  first  discussion  at  Ottawa,  he 
led  off  by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat  corrupt 
in  its  character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself — that 
we  had  entered  into  a  bargain,  one  of  the  terms 
of  which  was  that  Trumbull  was  to  Abolitionize 
the  old  Democratic  party,  and  I,  Lincoln,  was  to 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  97 

Abolitionize  the  Old  Whig  party — I  pretending- 
to  be  as  good  an  old-Hne  Whig  as  ever.  Judge 
Douglas  may  not  understand  that  he  implicated 
my  truthfulness  and  my  honor  when  he  said  I 
was  doing  one  thing  and  pretending  another ;  and 
I  misunderstood  him  if  he  thought  he  was  treat- 
ing me  i-Z  a  dignified  way,  as  a  man  of  honor 
and  truth,  as  he  now  claims  he  was  disposed  to 
treat  me.  Even  after  that  time,  at  Galesburg, 
when  he  brings  forward  an  extract  from  a 
speech  made  at  Chicago,  and  an  extract  from  a 
speech  made  at  Charleston,  to  prove  that  I  was 
trying  to  play  a  double  part, — that  I  was  trying 
to  cheat  the  public,  and  get  votes  upon  one  set 
of  principles  at  one  place  and  upon  another  set 
of  principles  at  another  place, — I  do  not  under- 
stand but  what  he  impeaches  my  honor,  my 
veracity,  and  my  candor ;  and  because  he  does 
this,  I  do  not  understand  that  I  am  bound,  if  I 
see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep  my  hands  off 
of  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  Judge  Douglas 
was  disposed  to  treat  me  in  this  way,  I  signified 
in  one  of  my  speeches  that  I  should  be  driven  to 
draw  upon  whatever  of  humble  resources  I  might 
have — to  adopt  a  new  course  with  him.  I  was 
not  entirely  sure  that  I  should  be  able  to  hold  my 
own  with  him,  but  I  at  least  had  the  purpose 
made  to  do  as  well  as  I  could  upon  him ;  and  now 
I  say  that  I  will  not  be  the  first  to  cry  ''Hold !" 
I  think  it  originated  with  the  judge,  and  when  he 
quits,  I  probably  will.  But  I  shall  not  ask  any 
favors  at  all.  He  asks  me,  or  he  asks  the  audi- 
ence, if  I  wish  to  push  this  matter  to  the  point  of 
personal  difficulty.  I  tell  him,  No.  He  did  not 
make  a  mistake,  in  one  of  his  early  speeches, 
when  he  called  me  an  ''amiable"  man,  though 


98  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

perhaps  he  did  when  he  called  me  an  "intelli- 
gent" man.  It  really  hurts  me  very  much  to 
suppose  that  I  have  wronged  anybody  on  earth. 
I  again  tell  him,  No !  I  very  much  prefer,  v.'hen 
this  canvass  shall  be  over,  however  it  may  result, 
that  wx  at  least  part  without  any  bitter  recollec- 
tions of  personal  difficulties. 

The  judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Gales- 
burg,  says  that  I  was  pushing  this  matter  to  a 
personal  difficulty  to  avoid  the  responsibility  for 
the  enormity  of  my  principles.  I  say  to  the 
judge  and  this  audience  now,  that  I  will  again 
state  our  principles  as  well  as  I  hastily  can  in  all 
their  enormity,  and  if  the  judge  hereafter  chooses 
to  confine  himself  to  a  war  upon  these  principles, 
he  will  probably  not  find  me  departing  from  the 
same  course. 

We  have  in  this  nation  the  element  of  domestic 
slavery.  It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty  that 
it  is  a  disturbing  element.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
all  the  great  men  who  have  expressed  an  opin- 
ion upon  it,  that  it  is  a  dangerous  element.  We 
keep  up  a  controversy  in  regard  to  it.  That  con- 
troversy necessarily  springs  from  difference  of 
opinion,  and  if  we  can  learn  exactly — can  reduce 
to  the  lowest  elements — what  that  difference  of 
opinion  is,  we  perhaps  shall  be  better  prepared 
for  discussing  the  different  systems  of  policy  that 
we  would  propose  in  regard  to  that  disturbing 
element.  I  suggest  that  the  difference  of  opin- 
ion, reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is  no  other  than 
the  difference  between  the  men  who  think  slav- 
ery a  wrong  and  those  who  do  not  think  it 
wrong.  The  Republican  party  think  it  wrong — 
we  think  it  is  a  moral,  a  social,  and  a  political 
wrong.     We  think  it  is  a  wrong  not  confining 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  99 

itself  merely  to  the  persons  or  the  States  where 
it  exists,  but  that  it  is  a  wrong  which  in  its  tend- 
ency, to  say  the  least,  affects  the  existence  of  the 
whole  nation.  Because  we  think  it  wrong,  we 
propose  a  course  of  policy  that  shall  deal  with  it 
as  a  wrong.  We  deal  with  it  as  with  any  other 
wrong,  in  so  far  as  we  can  prevent  its  growing 
any  larger,  and  so  deal  with  it  that  in  the  run 
of  time  there  may  be  some  promise  of  an  end  to 
it.  We  have  a  due  regard  to  the  actual  presence 
of  it  amongst  us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting 
rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way,  and  all  the  con- 
stitutional obligations  thrown  about  it.  I  suj>- 
pose  that  in  reference  both  to  its  actual  exist- 
ence in  the  nation,  and  to  our  constitutional  obli- 
gations, we  have  no  right  at  all  to  disturb  it  in 
the  States  where  it  exists,  and  we  profess  that 
v/e  have  no  more  inclination  to  disturb  it  than  we 
have  the  right  to  do  it.  We  go  further  than  that : 
we  don't  propose  to  disturb  it  where,  in  one  in- 
stance, we  think  the  Constitution  would  permit 
us.  We  think  the  Constitution  would  permit  us 
to  disturb  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Still 
we  do  not  propose  to  do  that,  unless  it  should  be 
in  terms  which  I  don't  suppose  the  nation  is  very 
likely  soon  to  agree  to — the  terms  of  making  the 
emancipation  gradual  and  compensating  the  un- 
willing owners.  Where  we  suppose  we  have  the 
constitutional  right,  we  restrain  ourselves  in  ref- 
erence to  the  actual  existence  of  the  institution 
and  the  difficulties  thrown  about  it.  We  also  op- 
pose it  as  an  evil  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  spread  it- 
self. We  insist  on  the  policy  that  shall  restrict 
it  to  its  present  limits.  We  don't  suppose  that 
in  doing  this  we  violate  anything  due  to  the  ac- 
tual presence  of  the  institution,  or  anything  due 


loo  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

to  the  constitutional  guaranties  thrown  around 
it. 

We  oppose  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  certain 
way,  upon  which  I  ought  perhaps  to  address  you 
a  few  words.  We  do  not  propose  that  when 
Dred  Scott  has  been  decided  to  be  a  slave  by  the 
court,  we,  as  a  mob,  will  decide  him  to  be  free. 
We  do  not  propose  that,  when  any  other  one,  or 
one  thousand,  shall  be  decided  by  that  court  to  be 
slaves,  we  will  in  any  violent  way  disturb  the  rights 
of  property  thus  settled ;  but  we  nevertheless  do 
oppose  that  decision  as  a  political  rule,  which 
shall  be  binding  on  the  voter  to  vote  for  nobody 
who  thinks  it  wrong,  which  shall  be  binding  on 
the  members  of  Congress  or  the  President  to 
favor  no  measure  that  does  not  actually  concur 
with  the  principles  of  that  decision.  We  do  not 
propose  to  be  bound  by  it  as  a  political  rule  in 
that  way,  because  we  think  it  lays  the  foundation 
not  merely  of  enlarging  and  spreading  out  what 
we  consider  an  evil,  but  it  lays  the  foundation 
for  spreading  that  evil  into  the  States  them- 
selves. We  propose  so  resisting  it  as  to  have  it 
reversed  if  we  can,  and  a  new  judicial  rule  es- 
tablished upon  this  subject. 

I  will  add  this,  that  if  there  be  any  man  who 
does  not  believe  that  slavery  is  wrong  in  the 
three  aspects  which  I  have  mentioned,  or  in  any 
one  of  them,  that  man  is  misplaced  and  ought  to 
leave  us.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  be 
any  man  in  the  Republican  party  who  is  im- 
patient over  the  necessity  springing  from  its 
actual  presence,  and  is  impatient  of  the  constitu- 
tional guaranties  thrown  around  it,  and  would 
act  in  disregard  of  these,  he  too  is  misplaced, 
standing  with  us.    He  will  find  his  place  some- 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  loi 

where  else ;  for  we  have  a  due  regard,  so  far  as 
we  are  capable  of  understanding  them,  for  all 
these  things.  This,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  can 
give  it,  is  a  plain  statement  of  our  principles  in 
all  their  enormity. 

I  will  say  now  that  there  is  a  sentiment  in  the 
country  contrary  to  me — a  sentiment  which  holds 
that  slavery  is  not  wrong,  and  therefore  it  goes 
for  the  policy  that  does  not  propose  dealing  with 
it  as  a  wrong.  That  policy  is  the  Democratic 
policy,  and  that  sentiment  is  the  Democratic  sen- 
timent. If  there  be  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any 
one  of  this  vast  audience  that  this  is  really  the 
central  idea  of  the  Democratic  party,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject,  I  ask  him  to  bear  with  me 
while  I  state  a  few  things  tending,  as  I  think,  to 
prove  that  proposition.  In  the  first  place,  the 
leading  man — I  think  I  may  do  my  friend  Judge 
Douglas  the  honor  of  calling  him  such — advo- 
cating the  present  Democratic  policy  never  him- 
self says  it  is  wrong.  He  has  the  high  dis- 
tinction, so  far  as  I  know,  of  never  having  said 
slavery  is  either  right  or  wrong.  Almost  every- 
body else  says  one  or  the  other,  but  the  judge 
never  does.  If  there  be  a  man  in  the  Democratic 
party  who  thinks  it  is  wrong,  and  yet  clings  to 
that  party,  I  suggest  to  him  in  the  first  place 
that  his  leader  don't  talk  as  he  does,  for  he  never 
says  that  it  is  wrong.  In  the  second  place,  I 
suggest  to  him  that  if  he  will  examine  the  policy 
proposed  to  be  carried  forward,  he  will  find  that 
he  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any- 
thing wrong  in  it.  If  you  will  examine  the  argu- 
ments that  are  made  on  it,  you  will  find  that 
every  one  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there 
is    anything    wrong    in    slavery.     Perhaps    that 


I02  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

Democrat  who  says  he  is  as  much  opposed  to 
slavery  as  I  am,  will  tell  me  that  I  am  wrong 
about  this.  I  wish  him  to  examine  his  own  course 
in  regard  to  this  matter  a  moment,  and  then  see 
if  his  opinion  will  not  be  changed  a  little.  You 
say  it  is  wrong;  but  don't  you  constantly  object 
to  anybody  else  saying  so?  Do  you  not  con- 
stantly argue  that  this  is  not  the  right  place  to 
oppose  it?  You  say  it  must  not  be  opposed  in 
the  free  States,  because  slavery  is  not  there;  it 
must  not  be  opposed  in  the  slave  States,  because 
it  is  there ;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in  politics, 
because  that  will  make  a  fuss ;  it  must  not  be 
opposed  in  the  pulpit,  because  it  is  not  religion. 
Then  where  is  the  place  to  oppose  it?  There  is 
no  suitable  place  to  oppose  it.  There  is  no  plan 
in  the  country  to  oppose  this  evil  overspreading 
the  continent,  which  you  say  yourself  is  coming. 
Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  tried  to  get  up  a 
system  of  gradual  emancipation  in  Missouri,  had 
an  election  in  August,  and  got  beat ;  and  you, 
Mr.  Democrat,  threw  up  your  hat  and  hallooed, 
''Hurrah  for  Democracy !" 

So  I  say  again,  that  in  regard  to  the  argu- 
ments that  are  made,  when  Judge  Douglas  says 
he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or 
voted  down,"  whether  he  means  that  as  an  in- 
dividual expression  of  sentiment,  or  only  as  a 
sort  of  statement  of  his  views  on  national  policy, 
it  is  alike  true  to  say  that  he  can  thus  argue 
logically  if  he  don't  see  anything  wrong  in  it; 
but  he  cannot  say  so  logically  if  he  admits  that 
slavery  is  wrong.  He  cannot  say  that  he  would 
as  soon  see  a  wrong  voted  up  as  voted  down. 
When  Judge  Douglas  says  that  whoever  or 
whatever  community  wants  slaves,  they  have  a 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  .03 

right  to  have  them,  he  is  perfectly  logical  if 
there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the  institution;  but  if 
you  admit  that  it  is  wrong,  he  cannot  logically 
say  that  anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  When 
he  says  that  slave  property  and  horse  and  hog 
property  are  alike  to  be  allowed  to  go  into  the 
Territories,  upon  the  principles  of  equality,  he 
is  reasoning  truly  if  there  be  no  difference  be- 
tween them  as  property ;  but  if  the  one  is  prop- 
erty, held  rightfully,  and  the  other  is  wrong, 
then  there  is  no  equality  between  the  right  and 
wrong ;  so  that,  turn  it  in  any  way  you  can,  in  all 
the  arguments  sustaining  the  Democratic  policy, 
and  in  that  policy  itself,  there  is  a  careful,  studied 
exclusion  of  the  idea  that  there  is  anything 
wrong  in  slavery.  Let  us  understand  this.  I 
am  not,  just  here,  trying  to  prove  that  we  are 
right  and  they  are  wrong.  I  have  been  stating 
where  we  and  they  stand,  and  trying  to  show 
what  is  the  real  difference  between  us ;  and  I 
now  say  that  whenever  we  can  get  the  question 
distinctly  stated, — can  get  all  these  men  who  be- 
lieve that  slavery  is  in  some  of  these  respects 
wrong,  to  stand  and  act  with  us  in  treating  it  as 
a  wrong, — then,  and  not  till  then,  I  think,  will 
we  in  some  way  come  to  an  end  of  this  slavery 
agitation. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Permit  me  to  say  that  unless 
silence  is  observed  it  will  be  impossible  for  me  to  be 
heard  by  this  immense  crowd,  and  my  friends  can  con- 
fer no  higher  favor  upon  me  than  by  omitting  all 
expressions  of  applause  or  approbation.  I  desire  to 
be  heard  rather  than  to  be  applauded.  I  wish  to 
address  myself  to  your  reason,  your  judgment,  your 
sense  of  justice,  and  not  to  your  passions. 


104  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

I  regret  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  have  deemed  it 
proper  for  him  to  again  indulge  in  gross  personalities 
and  base  insinuations  in  regard  to  the  Springfield 
resolutions.  It  has  imposed  upon  me  the  necessity  of 
using  some  portion  of  my  time  for  the  purpose  of 
calling  your  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  it 
will  then  be  for  you  to  say  what  you  think  of  a  man 
who  can  predicate  such  a  charge  upon  the  circum- 
stances he  has  in  this.  I  had  seen  the  platform  adopted 
by  a  Republican  congressional  convention  held  in 
Aurora,  the  second  congressional  district,  in  Septem- 
ber, 1854,  published  as  purporting  to  be  the  platform 
of  the  Republican  party.  That  platform  declared  that 
the  Republican  party  was  pledged  never  to  admit 
another  slave  State  into  thf  Union,  and  also  that  it 
was  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States, — not  only  all  that  we  then  had,  but 
all  that  we  should  thereafter  acquire, — and  to  repeal  un- 
conditionally the  fugitive-slave  law,  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  and  prohibit  the  slave-trade 
between  the  different  States.  These  and  other  articles 
against  slavery  were  contained  in  this  platform,  and 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  Republican  congressional 
convention  in  that  district.  I  had  also  seen  that  the 
Republican  congressional  conventions  at  Rockford,  in 
the  first  district,  and  at  Bloomington,  in  the  third, 
had  adopted  the  same  platform  that  year,  nearly  word 
for  word,  and  had  declared  it  to  be  the  platform  of  the 
Republican  party.  I  had  noticed  that  Major  Thomas 
L.  Harris,  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Spring- 
field district,  had  referred  to  that  platform  in  a  speech 
in  Congress,  as  having  been  adopted  by  the  first  Re- 
publican State  convention  which  assembled  in  Illinois. 
When  I  had  occasion  to  use  the  fact  in  this  canvass,  I 
wrote  to  Major  Harris  to  know  on  what  day  that 
convention  was  held,  and  to  ask  him  to  send  me  its 
proceedings.  He  being  sick,  Charles  H.  Lanphier 
answered  my  letter  by  sending  me  the  published  pro- 
ceedings of  the  convention  held  in  Springfield  on 
the  5th  of  October,  1854,  as  they  appeared  in  the  report 
of  the  State  Register.  I  read  those  resolutions  from 
that  newspaper  the  same  as  any  of  you  would  refer  back 
and  quote  any  fact  from  the  files  of  a  newspaper  which 
had  published  it.  Mr.  Lincoln  pretends  that  after  I  had 
so  quoted  those  resolutions  he  discovered  that  they  had 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  105 

never  been  adopted  at  Springfield.  He  does  not  deny 
their  adoption  by  the  Republican  party  at  Aurora,  at 
Bloomington,  and  at  Rockford,  and  by  nearly  all  the 
Republican  county  conventions  in  northern  Illinois 
where  his  party  is  in  a  majority;  but  merely  because 
they  were  not  adopted  on  the  "spot"  on  which  I  said 
they  were,  he  chooses  to  quibble  about  the  place  rather 
than  meet  and  discuss  the  merits  of  the  resolutions 
themselves.  I  stated  when  I  quoted  them  that  I  did  so 
from  the  State  Register.  I  gave  my  authority.  Lin- 
coln believed  at  the  time,  as  he  has  since  admitted, 
that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Springfield,  as  published. 
Does  he  believe  now  that  I  did  not  tell  the  truth  w^hen 
I  quoted  those  resolutions?  He  knows  in  his  heart 
that  I  quoted  them  in  good  faith,  believing  at  the  time 
that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Springfield.  I  would 
consider  myself  an  infamous  wretch  if,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, I  could  charge  any  man  with  being  a 
party  to  a  trick  or  a  fraud.  And  I  will  tell  him,  too, 
that  it  will  not  do  to  charge  a  forgery  on  Charles  H. 
Lanphier  or  Thomas  L.  Harris.  No  man  on  earth, 
who  knows  them,  and  knows  Lincoln,  would  take  his 
oath  against  their  word.  There  are  not  two  men  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  who  have  higher  characters  for 
truth,  for  integrity,  for  moral  character,  and  for  eleva- 
tion of  tone,  as  gentlemen,  than  Mr.  Lanphier  and  Mr. 
Harris.  Any  man  who  attempts  to  make  such  charges 
as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  indulged  in  against  them,  only 
proclaims  himself  a  slanderer. 

I  will  now  show  you  that  I  stated  with  entire  fair- 
ness, as  soon  as  it  was  made  known  to  me,  that  there 
was  a  mistake  about  the  spot  where  the  resolutions 
had  been  adopted,  although  their  truthfulness,  as  a 
declaration  of  the  principles  of  the  Republican  party, 
had  not  and  could  not  be  questioned.  I  did  not  wait 
for  Lincoln  to  point  out  the  mistake;  but  the  moment 
I  discovered  it,  I  made  a  speech,  and  published  it  to  the 
world,  correcting  the  error.  I  corrected  it  myself,  as 
a  gentleman  and  an  honest  man,  and  as  I  always  feel 
proud  to  do  when  I  have  made  a  mistake.  I  wish 
Mr.  Lincoln  could  show  that  he  has  acted  with  equal 
fairness  and  truthfulness  when  I  have  convinced  him' 
that  he  has  been  mistaken.  I  will  give  you  an  illus- 
tration to  show  you  how  he  acts  in  a  similar  case:  In 
a  speech  at  Springfield  he  charged  Chief  Justice  Taney 


io6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

and  his  associates,  President  Pierce,  President  Buch- 
anan, and  myself,  with  having  entered  into  a  con- 
spiracy at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced, 
by  which  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  to  be  made  by 
the  Supreme  Court,  in  order  to  carry  slavery  every- 
where under  the  Constitution.  I  called  his  attention 
to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  alluded  to — to  wit,  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Nebraska  bill — it  was  not  possible 
that  such  a  conspiracy  could  have  been  entered  into, 
for  the  reason  that  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  never 
been  taken  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  was  not 
taken  before  it  for  a  year  after;  and  I  asked  him  to 
take  back  that  charge.  Did  he  do  it?  I  showed  him 
that  it  was  impossible  that  the  charge  could  be  true; 
I  proved  it  by  the  record,  and  I  then  called  upon  him 
to  retract  his  false  charge.  What  was  his  answer? 
Instead  of  coming  out  like  an  honest  man  and  doing 
so,  he  reiterated  the  charge,  and  said  that  if  the  case 
had  not  gone  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  courts 
of  Missouri  at  the  time  he  charged  that  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  entered  into  the  conspiracy,  yet 
that  there  was  an  understanding  with  the  Democratic 
owners  of  Dred  Scott  that  they  would  take  it  up.  I 
have  since  asked  him  who  the  Democratic  owners  of 
Dred  Scott  were,  but  he  could  not  tell.  And  why? 
Because  there  were  no  such  Democratic  owners  in 
existence.  Dred  Scott  at  the  time  was  owned  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress, 
of  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  in  right  of  his  wife.  He 
was  owned  by  one  of  Lincoln's  friends,  and  not  by 
Democrats  at  all;  his  case  was  conducted  in  court  by 
Abolition  lawyers,  so  that  both  the  prosecution  and 
the  defense  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Abolition  political 
friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Notwithstanding  I  thus  proved  by  the  record  that 
his  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court  was  false,  in- 
stead of  taking  it  back,  he  resorted  to  another  false 
charge  to  sustain  the  infamy  of  it.  He  also  charged 
President  Buchanan  with  having  been  a  party  to  the 
conspiracy.  I  directed  his  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  charge  could  not  possibly  be  true,  for  the  reason 
that  at  the  time  specified  Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  in 
America,  but  was  three  thousand  miles  ofi",  represent- 
ing the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  and 
had  been  there  for  a  year  previous,  and  did  not  return 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  107 

till  three  years  afterward.  Yet  I  never  could  get  Mr. 
Lincoln  to  take  back  his  false  charge,  although  I  have 
called  upon  him  over  and  over  again.  He  refuses  to 
do  it,  and  either  remains  silent  or  resorts  to  other 
tricks  to  try  and  palm  his  slander  off  on  the  country. 
Therein  you  will  find  the  difference  between  Mr.  Lin- 
coln and  myslf.  When  I  make  a  mistake,  as  an  honest 
man  I  correct  it  without  being  asked  to  do  so;  but 
when  he  makes  a  false  charge,  he  sticks  to  it  and  never 
corrects  it.  One  word  more  in  regard  to  these  resolu- 
tions: I  quoted  them  at  Ottawa  merely  to  ask  Mr. 
Lincoln  whether  he  stood  on  that  platform.  That  was 
the  purpose  for  which  I  quoted  them.  I  did  not  think 
that  I  had  a  right  to  put  idle  questions  to  him,  and  I 
first  laid  a  foundation  for  my  questions  by  showing 
that  the  principles  which  I  wished  him  either  to  affirm 
or  deny  had  been  adopted  by  some  portion  of  his 
friends,  at  least,  as  their  creed.  Hence  I  read  the 
resolutions,  and  put  the  questions  to  him,  and  he  then 
refused  to  answer  them.  Subsequently — one  week 
afterward — he  did  answer  a  part  of  them,  but  the 
others  he  has  not  answered  up  to  this  day. 

Now  let  me  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  the 
answers  which  Mr.  Lincoln  made  at  Freeport  to  the 
questions  which  I  propounded  to  him  at  Ottawa,  based 
upon  the  platform  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  Aboli- 
tion counties  of  the  State,  which  now,  as  then,  sup- 
ported him.  In  answer  to  my  question  whether  he 
indorsed  the  Black  Republican  principle  of  "no  more 
slave  States,"  he  answered  that  he  was  not  pledged 
against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  but 
that  he  would  be  very  sorry  if  he  should  ever  be  placed 
in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  ques- 
tion; that  he  would  rejoice  to  know  that  no  more  slave 
States  would  be  admitted  into  the  Union;  "but,"  he 
added,  "if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Territories 
during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Ter- 
ritory, and  then  the  people  shall,  having  a  fair  chance 
and  a  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  constitu- 
tion, do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a 
slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence 
of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if 
we  own  the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the 
Union."  The  point  I  wish  him  to  answer  is  this: 
Suppose  Congress  should  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the 


io8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

Territory,  and  it  applied  for  admission  with  a  consti- 
tution recognizing  slavery,  then  how  would  he  vote? 
His  answer  at  Freeport  does  not  apply  to  any  Ter- 
ritory in  America.  I  ask  you  [turning  to  Lincoln],  will 
you  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union,  with  just 
such  a  constitution  as  her  people  want,  with  slavery  or 
without,  as  they  shall  determine?  He  will  not  answer. 
I  have  put  that  question  to  him  time  and  time  again, 
and  have  not  been  able  to  get  an  answer  out  of  him. 
I  ask  you  again,  Lincoln,  will  you  vote  to  admit  New 
Mexico,  when  she  has  the  requisite  population,  with 
such  a  constitution  as  her  people  adopt,  either  recog- 
nizing slavery  or  not,  as  they  shall  determine?  He 
will  not  answer.  I  put  the  same  question  to  him  in 
reference  to  Oregon  and  the  new  States  to  be  carved 
out  of  Texas  in  pursuance  of  the  contract  between 
Texas  and  the  United  States,  and  he  will  not  answer. 
He  will  not  answer  these  questions  in  reference  to  any 
Territory  now  in  existence,  but  says  that  if  Congress 
should  prohibit  slavery  in  a  Territory,  and  when  its 
people  asked  for  admission  as  a  State  they  should 
adopt  slavery  as  one  of  their  institutions,  that  he  sup- 
poses he  would  have  to  let  it  come  in.  I  submit  to 
you  whether  that  answer  of  his  to  my  question  does 
not  justify  me  in  saying  that  he  has  a  fertile  genius  in 
devising  language  to  conceal  his  thoughts.  I  ask  you 
whether  there  is  an  intelligent  man  in  America  who 
does  not  believe  that  the  answer  was  made  for  the 
purpose  of  concealing  what  he  intended  to  do.  He 
wished  to  make  the  old-line  Whigs  believe  that  he 
would  stand  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
which  declared  that  the  States  might  come  into  the 
Union  with  slavery,  or  without,  as  they  pleased,  while 
Lovejoy  and  his  Abolition  allies  up  north  explained  to 
the  Abolitionists  that  in  taking  this  ground  he 
preached  good  Abolition  doctrine,  because  his  proviso 
would  not  apply  to  any  Territory  in  America,  and 
therefore  there  was  no  chance  of  his  being  governed 
by  it.  It  would  have  been  quite  easy  for  him  to  have 
said  that  he  would  let  the  people  of  a  State  do  just  as 
they  pleased,  if  he  desired  to  convey  such  an  idea. 
Why  did  he  not  do  it?  He  would  not  answer  my 
question  directly  because,  up  north,  the  Abolition 
creed  declares  that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States, 
while   down   south,   in   Adams   County,   in   Coles,   and 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  109 

in  Sangamon,  he  and  his  friends  are  afraid  to  advance 
that  doctrine.  Therefore  he  gives  an  evasive  and 
equivocal  answer,  to  be  construed  one  way  in  the 
south  and  another  way  in  the  north,  which,  when 
analyzed,  it  is  apparent  is  not  an  answer  at  all  with 
reference  to  any  Territory  now  in  existence. 

Mr.  Lincoln  complains  that,  in  my  speech  the  other 
day  at  Galesburg,  I  read  an  extract  from  a  speech 
delivered  by  him  at  Chicago,  and  then  another  from 
his  speech  at  Charleston,  and  compared  them,  thus 
showing  the  people  that  he  had  one  set  of  principles 
in  one  part  of  the  State  and  another  in  the  other  part. 
And  how  does  he  answer  that  charge?  Why,  he 
quotes  from  his  Charleston  speech  as  I  quoted  from  it, 
and  then  quotes  another  extract  from  a  speech  which 
he  made  at  another  place,  which  he  says  is  the  same 
as  the  extract  from  his  speech  at  Charleston;  but  he 
does  not  quote  the  extract  from  his  Chicago  speech, 
upon  which  I  convicted  him  of  double-dealing.  I 
quoted  from  his  Chicago  speech  to  prove  that  he  held 
one  set  of  principles  up  north  among  the  Abolitionists, 
and  from  his  Charleston  speech  to  prove  that  he  held 
another  set  down  at  Charleston  and  in  southern 
Illinois.  In  his  answer  to  this  charge,  he  ignores 
entirely  his  Chicago  speech,  and  merely  argues  that  he 
said  the  same  thing  which  he  said  at  Charleston  at 
another  place.  If  he  did,  it  follows  that  he  has  twice, 
instead  of  once,  held  one  creed  in  one  part  of  the 
State,  and  a  dififerent  creed  in  another  part.  Up  at 
Chicago,  in  the  opening  of  the  campaign,  he  reviewed 
my  reception  speech,  and  undertook  to  answer  my 
argument  attacking  his  favorite  doctrine  of  negro 
equality.  I  had  shown  that  it  was  a  falsification  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  to  pretend  that  that  in- 
strument applied  to  and  included  negroes  in  the  clause 
declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal.  What  was 
Lincoln  reply?  I  will  read  from  his  Chicago  speech, 
and  the  one  which  he  did  not  quote,  and  dare  not 
quote,  in  this  part  of  the  State.     He  said: 

I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon 
principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will  it  stop? 
If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not 
another  man  say  it  does  not  mean  another  man?     If  that 


no  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

declaration    is   not  the   truth,  let  us  get  this   statute-book 
in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out. 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  the  Abolition- 
ists of  Chicago  that  if  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
did  not  declare  that  the  negro  was  created  by  the 
Almighty  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  that  you  ought 
to  take  that  instrument  and  tear  out  the  clause  which 
says  that  all  men  are  created  equal.  But  let  me  call 
your  attention  to  another  part  of  the  same  speech. 
You  know  that  in  his  Charleston  speech,  an  extract 
from  which  he  has  read,  he  declared  that  the  negro 
belongs  to  an  inferior  race,  is  physically  inferior  to 
the  white  man,  and  should  always  be  kept  in  an  in- 
ferior position.  I  will  now  read  to  you  what  he  said 
at  Chicago  on  that  point.  In  concluding  his  speech  at 
that  place,  he  remarked: 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desire 
to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say,  let  us  discard  all  this 
quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other  man — this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and 
therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position,  dis- 
carding our  standard  that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us  dis- 
card all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout 
this  land  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up  declaring 
that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

Thus  you  see  that  when  addressing  the  Chicago 
Abolitionists  he  declared  that  all  distinctions  of  race 
must  be  discarded  and  blotted  out,  because  the  negro 
stood  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  white  man;  that  if 
one  man  said  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not 
mean  a  negro  when  it  declared  all  men  created  equal, 
that  another  man  would  say  that  it  did  not  mean 
another  man;  and  hence  we  ought  to  discard  all  dif- 
ference between  the  negro  race  and  all  other  races,  and 
declare  them  all  created  equal.  Did  old  Giddings, 
when  he  came  down  among  you  four  years  ago,  preach 
more  radical  Abolitionism  than  this?  Did  Lovejoy,  or 
Lloyd  Garrison,  or  Wendell  Phillips,  or  Fred  Doug- 
lass, ever  take  higher  Abolition  grounds  than  that? 
Lincoln  told  you  that  I  had  charged  him  with  getting 
up  these  personal  attacks  to  conceal  the  enormity  of  his 
principles,  and  then  commenced  talking  about  some- 
thing else,  omitting  to  quote  this  part  of  his  Chicago 
speech  which  contained  the  enormity  of  his  principles 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  111 

to  which  I  alluded.  He  knew  that  I  alluded  to  his 
negro-equality  doctrines  when  I  spoke  of  the  enormity 
of  his  principles,  yet  he  did  not  find  it  convenient  to 
answer  on  that  point.  Having  shown  you  what  he 
said  in  his  Chicago  speech  in  reference  to  negroes 
being  created  equal  to  white  men,  and  about  discard- 
ing all  distinctions  betwen  the  two  races,  I  will  again 
read  to  you  what  he  said  at  Charleston: 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in 
favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  white  and  black  races  ;  that  I  am  not,  nor 
ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  free 
negroes,  or  jurors,  or  qualifying  them  to  hold_  office,  or 
having  them  to  marry  with  white  people.  I  will  say,  in 
addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
white  and  black  races  which,  I  suppose,  will  forever 
forbid  the  two  races  living  together  upon  terms  of  social 
and  political  equality ;  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so 
live,  while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the 
position  of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I,  as  much  as  any 
other  man,  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being 
assigned  to  the  white  man. 


'&» 


[A  voice:  "That's  the  doctrine."] 

Mr.  Douglas:  Yes,  sir,  that  is  good  doctrine;  but 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  afraid  to  advocate  it  in  the  latitude  of 
Chicago,  where  he  hopes  to  get  his  votes.  It  is  good 
doctrine  in  the  anti-Abolition  counties  for  him,  and 
his  Chicago  speech  is  good  doctrine  in  the  Abolition 
counties.  I  assert,  on  the  authority  of  these  two 
speeches  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  he  holds  one  set  of 
principles  in  the  Abolition  counties,  and  a  different 
and  contradictory  set  in  the  other  counties.  I  do  not 
question  that  he  said  at  Ottawa  what  he  quoted,  but 
that  only  convicts  him  further,  by  proving  that  he  has 
twice  contradicted  himself  instead  of  once.  Let  me 
ask  him  why  he  cannot  avow  his  principles  the  same 
in  the  north  as  in  the  south — the  same  in  every  county, 
if  he  has  a  conviction  that  they  are  just?  But  I  for- 
got— he  would  not  be  a  Republican  if  his  principles 
would  apply  alike  to  every  part  of  the  country.  The 
party  to  which  he  belongs  is  bounded  and  limited  by 
geographical  lines.  With  their  principles  they  cannot 
even  cross  the  Mississippi  River  on  your  ferry-boats. 
They  cannot  cross  over  the  Ohio  into  Kentucky.  Lin- 
coln himself  cannot  visit  the  land  of  his  fathers,  the 


1x2  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

scenes  of  his  childhood,  the  graves  of  his  ancestors, 
and  carry  his  Abolition  principles,  as  he  declared  them 
at  Chicago,  with  him. 

This  Republican  organization  appeals  to  the  North 
agamst  the  South;  it  appeals  to  Northern  passion, 
Northern  prejudice,  and  Northern  ambition,  against 
Southern  people,  Southern  States,  and  Southern  in- 
stitutions, and  its  only  hope  of  success  is  by  that  ap- 
peal. Mr.  Lincoln  goes  on  to  justify  himself  in  mak- 
ing a  war  upon  slavery  upon  the  ground  that  Frank 
Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  did  not  succeed  in  their  war- 
fare upon  the  institutions  in  Missouri.  Frank  Blair 
was  elected  to  Congress,  in  1856,  from  the  State  of 
Missouri,  as  a  Buchanan  Democrat,  and  he  turned 
Fremonter  after  the  people  elected  him,  thus  belong- 
ing to  one  party  before  his  election,  and  another  after- 
ward. What  right,  then,  had  he  to  expect,  after  hav- 
ing thus  cheated  his  constituency,  that  they  would 
support  him  at  another  election?  Mr.  Lincoln  thinks 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  preach  a  crusade  in  the  free  States 
against  slavery,  because  it  is  a  crime,  as  he  believes, 
and  ought  to  be  extinguished,  and  because  the  people 
of  the  slave  States  will  never  abolish  it.  How  is  he 
going  to  abolish  it?  Down  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
State  he  takes  the  ground  openly  that  he  will  not 
interfere  with  slavery  where  it  exists,  and  says  that  he 
is  not  now  and  never  was  in  favor  of  interfering  with 
slavery  where  it  exists  in  the  States.  Well,  if  he  is 
not  in  favor  of  that,  how  does  he  expect  to  bring 
slavery  into  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction?  How 
can  he  extinguish  it  in  Kentucky,  in  Virginia,  in  all 
the  slave  States,  by  his  policy,  if  he  will  not  pursue  a 
policy  which  will  interfere  with  it  in  the  States  where 
it  exists?  In  his  speech  at  Springfield  before  the 
Abolition  or  Republican  convention,  he  declared  his 
hostility  to  any  more  slave  States  in  this  language: 

Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  the  agitation  has 
not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In 
my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed. _  "A  house  divided  against  itself  can- 
not stand."  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure 
permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the 
Union  to  be  dissolved, — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to 
fall, — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.     Either  the  oppo- 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  113 

tients  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that 
it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful 
in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South. 

Mr.  Lincoln  there  told  his  Abolition  friends  that  this 
government  could  not  endure  permanently  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  that 
it  must  become  all  free  or  all  slave;  otherwise,  that 
the  government  could  not  exist.  How  then  does  Lin- 
coln purpose  to  save  the  Union,  unless  by  compelling 
ail  the  States  to  become  free,  so  that  the  house  shall 
not  be  divided  against  itself?  He  intends  making  them 
all  free;  he  will  preserve  the  Union  in  that  way;  and 
yet  he  is  not  going  to  interfere  with  slavery  anywhere 
it  now  exists.  How  is  he  going  to  bring  it  about? 
Why,  he  will  agitate;  he  will  induce  the  North  to 
agitate  until  the  South  shall  be  worried  out,  and 
forced  to  abolish  slavery.  Let  us  examine  the  policy 
by  which  that  is  to  be  done.  He  first  tells  you  that  he 
would  prohibit  slavery  everywhere  in  the  Territories. 
He  would  thus  confine  slavery  within  its  present  limits. 
When  he  thus  gets  it  confined,  and  surrounded,  so 
that  it  cannot  spread,  the  natural  laws  of  increase  will 
go  on  until  the  negroes  will  be  so  plenty  that  they  can- 
not live  on  the  soil.  He  will  hem  them  in  until  star- 
vation seizes  them,  and  by  starving  them  to  death  he 
will  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
If  he  is  not  going  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
States,  but  intends  to  interfere  and  prohibit  it  in  the 
Territories,  and  thus  smother  slavery  out,  it  naturally 
follows  that  he  can  extinguish  it  only  by  extinguishing 
the  negro  race;  for  his  policy  would  drive  them  to 
starvation.  This  is  the  humane  and  Christian  remedy 
that  he  proposes  for  the  great  crime  of  slavery. 

He  tells  you  that  I  will  not  argue  the  question 
whether  slavery  is  right  or  wrong,  I  tell  you  why  I 
will  not  do  it,  I  hold  that,  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  each  State  of  this  Union  has  a  right 
to  do  as  it  pleases  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  In 
Illinois  we  have  exercised  that  sovereign  right  by 
prohibiting  slavery  within  our  own  limits.  I  approve 
of  that  line  of  policy.  We  have  performed  our  whole 
duty  in  Illinois.     We  have  gone  as  far  as  we  have  a 


114  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

right  to  go  under  the  Constitution  of  our  common 
country.  It  is  none  of  our  business  whether  slavery 
exists  in  Missouri  or  not.  Missouri  is  a  sovereign 
State  of  this  Union,  and  has  the  same  right  to  decide 
the  slavery  question  for  herself  that  Illinois  has  to 
decide  it  for  herself.  Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  occupy 
the  time  allotted  to  me  in  discussing  a  question  that 
we  have  no  right  to  act  upon.  I  thought  that  you 
desired  to  hear  us  upon  those  questions  coming  within 
our  constitutional  power  of  acts.  Lincoln  will  not  dis- 
cuss these.  What  one  question  has  he  discussed  that 
comes  within  the  power  or  calls  for  the  action  or 
interference  of  a  United  States  senator?  He  is  going 
to  discuss  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  when  Congress 
cannot  act  upon  it  either  way.  He  wishes  to  discuss 
the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  when,  under 
the  Constitution,  a  senator  has  no  right  to  interfere 
with  the  decision  of  judicial  tribunals.  He  wants  your 
'exclusive  attention  to  two  questions  that  he  has  no 
power  to  act  upon;  to  two  questions  that  he  could  not 
vote  upon  if  he  was  in  Congress;  to  two  questions 
that  are  not  practical,  in  order  to  conceal  from  your 
attention  other  questions  which  he  might  be  required 
to  vote  upon  should  he  ever  become  a  member  of 
Congress.  He  tells  you  that  he  does  not  like  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Suppose  he  does  not,  how  is  he 
going  to  help  himself?  He  says  that  he  will  reverse  it. 
How  will  he  reverse  it?  I  know  of  but  one  mode  of 
reversing  judicial  decisions,  and  that  is  by  appealing 
from  the  inferior  to  the  superior  court.  But  I  have 
never  yet  learned  how  or  where  an  appeal  could  be 
taken  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  pronounced  by  the 
highest  tribunal  on  earth.  From  that  decision  there  is 
no  appeal  this  side  of  heaven.  Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  says 
he  is  going  to  reverse  that  decision.  By  what  tribunal 
will  he  reverse  it?  Will  he  appeal  to  a  mob?  Does  he 
intend  to  appeal  to  violence,  to  lynch-law?  Will  he 
stir  up  strife  and  rebellion  in  the  land,  and  overthrow 
the  court  by  violence?  He  does  not  deign  to  tell  you 
how  he  will  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but  keeps 
appealing  each  day  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  political  meetings  in  the  country. 
He  wants  me  to  argue  with  you  the  merits  of  each 
point  of  that  decision  before  this  political  meetmg.     I 


1858 J  AT  QUINCY  115 

say  to  you,  with  all  due  respect,  that  I  choose  to  abide 
"by  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  they  are 
pronounced.  It  is  not  for  me  to  inquire,  after  a 
decision  is  made,  whether  I  like  it  in  all  the  points  or 
not.  When  I  used  to  practise  law  with  Lincoln,  I 
never  knew  him  to  be  beat  in  a  case  that  he  did  not 
get  mad  at  the  judge  and  talk  about  appealing;  and 
when  I  got  beat  I  generally  thought  the  court  was 
wrong,  but  I  never  dreamed  of  going  out  of  the  court- 
house and  making  a  stump  speech  to  the  people  against 
the  judge,  merely  because  I  had  found  out  that  I  did 
not  know  the  law  as  well  as  he  did.  If  the  decision 
did  not  suit  me,  I  appealed  until  I  got  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  then  if  that  court,  the  highest  tribunal  in 
the  world,  decided  against  me,  I  was  satisfied,  because 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  law-abiding  man  to  obey  the 
Constitution,  the  laws,  and  the  constituted  authorities. 
He  who  attempts  to.  stir  up  odium  and  rebellion  in 
the  country  against  the  constituted  authorities,  is 
stimulating  the  passions  of  men  to  resort  to  violence 
and  to  mobs  instead  of  to  the  law.  Hence  I  tell  you 
that  I  take  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  the 
law  of  the  land,  and  I  intend  to  obey  them  as  such. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  I  will  not  answer  his 
■question  as  to  what  I  would  do  in  the  event  of  the 
court  making  so  ridiculous  a  decision  as  he  imagines 
they  would  by  deciding  that  the  free  State  of  Illinois 
could  not  prohibit  slavery  within  her  own  limits.  I 
told  him  at  Freeport  why  I  would  not  answer  such  a 
question.  I  told  him  that  there  was  not  a  man  pos- 
sessing any  brains  in  America,  lawyer  or  not,  who 
ever  dreamed  that  such  a  thing  could  be  done.  I  told 
him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that  by  all  the  principles  set 
forth  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is  impossible.  I 
told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that  it  is  an  insult  to  men's 
understanding,  and  a  gross  calumny  on  the  court,  to 
presume  in  advance  that  it  was  going  to  degrade  itself 
so  low  as  to  make  a  decision  known  to  be  in  direct 
violation  of  the  Constitution.  {A  voice:  ''The  same 
thing  was  said  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision  before  it 
J>assed."]  Perhaps  you  think  that  the  court  did  the 
same  thing  in  reference  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
I  have  heard  a  man  talk  that  way  before.  The  princi- 
ples contained  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  been 
affirmed  previously  in  various  other  decisions.     What 


n6  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

court  or  judge  ever  held  that  a  negro  was  a  citizen? 
The  State  courts  had  decided  that  question  over  and. 
over  again,  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  on  that  point 
only  atifirmed  what  every  court  in  the  land  knew  to  be 
the  law. 

But  I  will  not  be  drawn  off  into  an  argument  upon 
the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  It  is  enough 
for  me  to  know  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  created  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  purpose  of 
deciding  all  disputed  questions  touching  the  true  con- 
struction of  that  instrument,  and  when  such  decisions 
are  pronounced,  they  are  the  law  of  the  land,  binding 
on  every  good  citizen.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  a  very  con- 
venient mode  of  arguing  upon  the  subject.  He  holds 
that  because  he  is  a  Republican  he  is  not  bound  by 
the  decisions  of  the  court,  but  that  I,  being  a  Demo- 
crat, am  so  bound.  It  may  be  that  Republicans  do  not 
hold  themselves  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  country  as  expounded  by  the 
courts;  it  may  be  an  article  in  the  Republican  creed 
that  men  who  do  not  like  a  decision  have  a  right  to 
rebel  against  it ;  but  when  Mr.  Lincoln  preaches  that 
doctrine,  I  think  he  will  find  some  honest  Republican 
— some  law-abiding  man  in  that  party — who  will  re- 
pudiate such  a  monstrous  doctrine.  The  decision  in 
the  Dred  Scott  case  is  binding  on  every  American 
citizen  alike;  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  argues  that  the 
Republicans  are  not  bound  by  it  because  they  are 
opposed  to  it,  whilst  Democrats  are  bound  by  it  be- 
cause we  will  not  resist  it.  A  Democrat  cannot  resist 
the  constituted  authorities  of  this  country;  a  Democrat 
is  a  law-abiding  man;  a  Democrat  stands  by  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  relies  upon  liberty  as 
protected  by  law,  and  not  upon  mob  or  political 
violence. 

I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  make  Mr.  Lincoln  un- 
derstand, nor  can  I  make  any  man  who  is  determined 
to  support  him,  right  or  wrong,  understand,  how  it  is 
that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  as  well  as  a  State,  can  have  slavery  or  not, 
just  as  they  please.  I  believe  that  I  can  explain  that 
proposition  to  all  constitution-loving,  law-abiding^ 
men  in  a  way  that  they  cannot  fail  to  understand. 
Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinon  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case,    said   that    slaves    being   property,   the    owner   of 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  117 

them  has  a  right  to  take  them  into  a  Territory  the 
same  as  he  would  any  other  property;  in  other  words, 
that  slave  property,  so  far  as  the  right  to  enter  into  a 
Territory  is  concerned,  stands  on  the  same  footing 
with  other  property.  Suppose  we  grant  that  proposi- 
tion. Then  any  man  has  a  right  to  go  to  Kansas  and 
take  his  property  with  him,  but  when  he  gets  there 
he  must  rely  upon  the  local  law  to  protect  his  property, 
whatever  it  may  be.  In  order  to  illustrate  this,  imagine 
that  three  of  you  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas.  One 
takes  $10,000  worth  of  slaves,  another  $10,000  worth  of 
liquors,  and  the  third  $10,000  worth  of  dry-goods. 
When  the  man  who  owns  the  dry-goods  arrives  out 
there  and  commences  selling  them,  he  finds  that  he  is 
stopped  and  prohibited  from  selling  until  he  gets  a 
license,  which  will  destroy  all  the  profits  he  can  make 
on  his  goods  to  pay  for.  When  the  man  with  the 
liquors  gets  there  and  tries  to  sell,  he  finds  a  Maine 
liquor-law  in  force  which  prevents  him.  Now  of  what 
use  is  his  right  to  go  there  with  his  property  unless  he 
is  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  right  after  he 
gets  there?  The  man  who  goes  there  with  his  slaves 
finds  that  there  is  no  law  to  protect  him  when  he 
arrives  there.  He  has  no  remedy  if  his  slaves  run 
away  to  another  country:  there  is  no  slave  code  or 
police  regulations,  and  the  absence  of  them  excludes 
his  slaves  from  the  Territory  just  as  effectually  and 
as  positively  as  a  constitutional  prohibition  could  ex- 
clude them. 

Such  was  the  understanding  when  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  was  pending  in  Congress.  Read  the 
speech  of  Speaker  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  in  1856,  on  the  Kansas  question, 
and  you  will  find  that  he  takes  the  ground  that  while 
the  owner  of  a  slave  has  a  right  to  go  into  a  Territory 
and  carry  his  slaves  with  him,  that  he  cannot  hold 
them  one  day  or  hour  unless  there  is  a  slave  code  to 
protect  him.  He  tells  you  that  slavery  would  not 
exist  a  day  in  South  Carolina,  or  any  other  State, 
unless  there  was  a  friendly  people  and  friendly  legis- 
lation. Read  the  speeches  of  that  giant  in  intellect, 
Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  and  you  will  find 
them  to  the  same  effect.  Read  the  speeches  of  Sam 
Smith,  of  Tennessee,  and  of  all  Southern  men,  and  you 
will  find  that  they  all  understood  this  doctrine  then  as 


ii8  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

we  understand  it  now.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made 
to  understand  it,  however.  Down  at  Jonesboro,  he 
went  on  to  argue  that  if  it  be  the  law  that  a  man  has 
a  right  to  take  his  slaves  into  territory  of  the  United 
States  under  the  Constitution,  that  then  a  member  of 
Congress  was  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a  slave 
code.  I  ask  him  whether  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  is  not  binding  upon  him  as  well  as  on  me?  If 
so,  and  he  holds  that  he  would  be  perjured  if  he  did 
not  vote  for  a  slave  code  under  it,  I  ask  him  whether, 
if  elected  to  Congress,  he  will  so  vote?  I  have  a  right 
to  his  answer,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  He  put  that 
question  to  me  down  in  Egypt,  and  did  it  with  an  air 
of  triumph.  This  was  about  the  form  of  it:  'Tn  the 
event  a  slave-holding  citizen  of  one  of  the  Territories 
should  need  and  demand  a  slave  code  to  protect  his 
slaves,  would  you  vote  for  it?"  I  answered  him  that 
a  fundamental  article  in  the  Democratic  creed,  as  put 
forth  in  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati  platform, 
was  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the 
States  and  Territories,  and  hence  that  I  would  not 
vote  in  Congress  for  any  code  of  laws  either  for  or 
against  slavery  in  any  Territory.  I  will  leave  the 
people  perfectly  free  to  decide  that  question  for  them- 
selves. 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Washington  Union  both  think 
that  a  monstrous  bad  doctrine.  Neither  Mr.  Lincoln 
nor  the  Washington  Union  likes  my  Freeport  speech 
on  that  subject.  The  Union,  in  a  late  number,  has  been 
reading  me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  because  I 
hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State,  have  the  right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they 
please.  It  has  devoted  three  and  a  half  columns  to 
prove  certain  propositions,  one  of  which  I  will  read. 
It  says: 

We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas's  action  in  1850 
and  1854  was  taken  with  especial  reference  to  the  an- 
nouncement of  doctrine  and  programme  which  was  made 
at  Freeport.  The  declaration  at  Freeport  was  that  "in 
his  opinion  the  people  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude 
slavery  from  a  Territory  before  it  comes  in  as  a  State"  ; 
and  he  declared  that  his  competitor  had  "heard  him  argue 
the  Nebraska  bill  on  that  principle  all  over  Illinois  in 
1854.  1855,  and  1856,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to 
have  any  doubt  upon  that  subject." 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  119 

The  Washington  Union  there  charges  me  with  the 
monstrous  crime  of  now  proclaiming  on  the  stump 
the  same  doctrine  that  I  carried  out  in  1850,  by  sup- 
porting Clay's  compromise  measures.  The  Union 
also  charges  that  I  am  now  proclaiming  the  same 
doctrine  that  I  did  in  1854  in  support  of  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill.  It  is  shocked  that  I  should  now  stand 
where  I  stood  in  1850,  when  I  was  supported  by  Clay, 
Webster,  Cass,  and  the  great  men  of  that  day,  and 
where  I  stood  in  1854,  and  in  1856,  when  Mr.  Buch- 
anan was  elected  President.  It  goes  on  to  prove, 
and  succeeds  in  proving,  from  my  speeches  in  Con- 
gress on  Clay's  compromise  measures,  that  I  held  the 
same  doctrines  at  that  time  that  I  do  now,  and  then 
proves  that  by  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  I  ad- 
vanced the  same  doctrine  that  I  now  advance.  It 
remarks: 

So  much  for  the  course  taken  by  Judge  Douglas  on  the 
compromises  of  1850.  The  record  shows,  beyond  the  Dossi- 
bility  of  cavil  or  dispute,  that  he  expressly  intended  in 
those  bills  to  give  the  territorial  legislatures  power  to 
exclude  slavery.  How  stands  his  record  in  the  memorable 
session  of  1854,  with  reference  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
iDill  itself?  We  shall  not  overhaul  the  votes  that  were 
given  on  that  notable  measure.  Our  space  will  not  afford 
it.  We  have  his  own  words,  however,  delivered  in  his 
speech  closing  the  great  debate  on  that  bill  on  the  night 
of  March  3,  1854,  to  show  that  he  meant  to  do  in  1854 
precisely  what  he  had  meant  to  do  in  1858.  The  Kansas- 
Nebraska   bill   being  upon   its  passage,   he   said : 

It  then  quotes  my  remarks  upon  the  passage  of  the 
bill  as  follows: 

The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into  effect  by 
this  bill  is  this :  That  Congress  shall  neither  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  out  of  the  same; 
but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  do- 
mestic concerns  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  In  order  to  carry  this 
principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  remove  whatever  legal  obstacles  might  be  found  in 
the  way  of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  out  this  great  fundamental  principle  of  self- 
government  that  the  bill  renders  the  eighth  section  of  the 
Missouri  act  inoperative  and  void. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  will  those  senators  who  have  arraigned 
me,  or  any  one  of  them,  have  the  assurance  to  rise  in  his 
place    and    declare    that    this    great    principle    was    never 


I20  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

thought  of  or  advocated  as  applicable  to  territorial  bills 
in  1850;  that  from  that  session  until  the  present,  nobody 
ever  thought  of  incorporating  this  principle  in  all  new 
territorial  organizations,  etc.,  etc.  ?  I  will  begin  with 
the  compromises  of  1850.  Any  senator  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  examine  our  journals  will  find  that  on  the 
25th  of  March  of  that  year  I  reported  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories  two  bills,  including  the  following 
measures :  the  admission  of  California,  a  territorial  gov- 
ernment for  Utah,  a  territorial  government  for  New 
Mexico,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas  boundary.  These 
bills  proposed  to  leave  the  people  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  free  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves, 
in  the  precise  language  of  the  Nebraska  bill  now  under 
discussion.  A  few  weeks  afterward  the  committee  of 
thirteen  took  those  bills  and  put  a  wafer  between  them 
and  reported  them  back  to  the  Senate  as  one  bill,  with 
some  slight  amendments.  One  of  these  amendments  was 
that  the  territorial  legislatures  should  not  legislate  upon 
the  subject  of  African  slavery.  1  objected  to  this  pro- 
vision, upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted  the  great  princi- 
ple of  self-government,  upon  which  the  bill  had  been  orig- 
inally framed  by  the  territorial  committee.  On  the  first 
trial  the  Senate  refused  to  strike  it  out,  but  subsequently 
did  so,  upon  full  debate,  in  order  to  establish  that  princi- 
ple as  the  rule  of  action  in  territorial  organizations. 

The  Union  comments  thus  on  my  speech  on  that 
occasion: 

Thus  it  is  seen  that,  in  framing  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill. 
Judge  Douglas  framed  it  in  the  terms  and  upon  the  model 
of  those  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  that  in  the 
debate  he  took  pains  expressly  to  revive  the  recollection  of 
the  voting  which  had  taken  place  upon  amendni«nts  affect- 
ing the  powers  of  the  territorial  legislatures  over  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  in  the  bills  of  1850,  in  order  to  give  the 
same  meaning,  force,  and  effect  to  the  Nebraska-Kansas 
bill  on  this  subject  as  had  been  given  to  those  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico. 

The  Union  proves  the  following  propositions:  First, 
that  I  sustained  Clay's  compromise  measures  on  the 
ground  that  they  established  the  principle  of  self- 
government  in  the  Territories.  Secondly,  that  I 
brought  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  founded 
upon  the  sarrie  principles  as  Clay's  compromise 
measures  of  1850;  and  thirdly,  that  my  Freeport  speech 
is  in  exact  accordance  with  those  principles.  And 
what  do  you  think  is  the  imputation  that  the   Union 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  I2l 

casts  upon  me  for  all  this?  It  says  that  my  Freeport 
speech  is  not  Democratic,  and  that  I  was  not  a  Demo- 
crat in  1854  or  in  1850!  Now,  is  not  that  funny? 
Think  that  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill  was  not  a  Democrat  when  he  introduced  it!  The 
Union  says  I  was  not  a  sound  Democrat  in  1850,  nor  in 
1854,  nor  in  1856,  nor  am  I  in  1858,  because  I  have 
always  taken  and  now  occupy  the  ground  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  have  the 
right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall 
or  shall  not  exist  in  a  Territory.  I  wish  to  cite,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Washington  Union  and  the  followers 
of  that  sheet,  one  authority  on  that  point,  and  I  hope 
the  authority  will  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  that  class 
of  politicians.  I  will  read  from  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter 
accepting  the  nomination  of  the  Democratic  conven- 
tion for  the  presidency.  You  know  that  Mr.  Buch- 
anan, after  he  was  nominated,  declared  to  the  Key- 
stone Club,  in  a  public  speech,  that  he  was  no  longer 
James  Buchanan,  but  the  embodiment  of  the  Dem- 
ocratic platform.  In  his  letter  to  the  committee  which 
informed  him  of  his  nomination,  accepting  it,  he  de- 
fined the  meaning  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  and 
the  Cincinnati  platform  in  these  words: 

The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic 
slavery,  derived  as  it  has  been  from  the  original  and 
pvire  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of 
the  majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous 
excitement.  This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles 
as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance 
with  them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Ter- 
ritory, like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits. 

Thus  you  see  that  James  Buchanan  accepted  the 
nomination  at  Cincinnati  on  the  condition  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  should  be 
left  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  or 
should  not  exist  within  their  limits.  I  sustained  James 
Buchanan  for  the  presidency  on  that  platform  as 
adopted  at  Cincinnati  and  expounded  by  himself.  He 
was  elected  president  on  that  platform,  and  now  we  are 
told  by  the  Washington  Union  that  no  man  is  a  true 
Democrat  who  stands  on  the  platform  on  which  Mr. 
Buchanan  was  nominated,  and  which  he  has  explained 
and  expounded  himself.     We  are  told  that  a  man  is 


122  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

not  a  Democrat  who  stands  by  Clay,  Webster,  and 
Cass,  and  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854.  Whether  a  man  be 
a  Democrat  or  not  on  that  platform,  I  intend  to  stand 
there  as  long  as  I  have  life.  I  intend  to  cling  firmly 
to  that  great  principle  which  declares  the  right  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  to  settle  the  question 
of  slavery,  and  every  other  domestic  question,  for 
themselves.  I  hold  that  if  they  want  a  slave  State, 
they  have  a  right,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  make  it  so,  and  if  they  want  a  free  State, 
it  is  their  right  to  have  it.  But  the  Union,  in  advocat- 
ing the  claims  of  Lincoln  over  me  to  the  Senate,  lays 
down  two  unpardonable  heresies  which  it  says  I  ad- 
vocate. The  first  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Ter- 
ritory, the  same  as  a  State,  to  decide  for  themselves  the 
question  whether  slavery  shall  exist  within  their 
limits,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan;  and  the 
second  is  that  a  constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
people  of  a  Territory  for  its  adoption  or  rejection 
before  their  admission  as  a  State  under  it.  It  so 
happens  that  Mr.  Buchanan  is  pledged  to  both  these 
heresies,  for  supporting  which  the  Washington  Union 
has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  church.  In  his 
annual  message  he  said  he  trusted  that  the  example  of 
the  Minnesota  case  would  be  followed  in  all  future 
cases  requiring  a  submission  of  the  constitution;  and 
in  his  letter  of  acceptance  he  said  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  the  same  as  a  State,  had  the  right  to  decide 
for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  exist  within 
their  limits.  Thus  you  find  that  this  little  corrupt 
gang  who  control  the  Union,  and  wish  to  elect  Lincoln 
in  preference  to  me, — because,  as  they  say,  of  these  two 
heresies  which  I  support, — denounce  President  Buch- 
anan when  they  denounce  me,  if  he  stands  now  by 
the  principles  upon  which  he  was  elected.  Will  they 
pretend  that  he  does  not  now  stand  by  the  principles 
on  which  he  was  elected?  Do  they  hold  that  he  has 
abandoned  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  Cincinnati 
platformi,  and  his  own  letter  accepting  his  nomination, 
all  of  which  declare  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Terri- 
tory, the  same  as  a  State,  to  decide  the  slavery  ques- 
tion for  themselves?  I  will  not  believe  that  he  has 
betrayed  or  intends  to  betray  the  platform  which 
elected  him;  but  if  he  does,  I  will  not  follow  him.     I 


iSsSJ  AT  QUINCY  123 

will  stand  by  that  great  principle,  no  matter  who  may- 
desert  it.  I  intend  to  stand  by  it  for  the  purpose  of 
preserving  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
the  free  and  the  slave  States. 

If  each  State  will  only  agree  to  mind  its  own  busi- 
ness, and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  there  will  be  peace 
forever  between  us.  We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery  when 
a  Territory,  and  found  it  was  not  good  for  us  in  this 
climate,  and  with  our  surroundings,  and  hence  we 
abolished  it.  We  then  adopted  a  free-State  constitu- 
tion, as  we  had  a  right  to  do.  In  this  State  we  have 
declared  that  a  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  and  we 
have  also  declared  that  he  shall  not  be  a  slave.  We 
had  a  right  to  adopt  that  policy.  Missouri  has  just  as 
good  a  right  to  adopt  the  other  policy.  I  am  now 
speaking  of  rights  under  the  Constitution,  and  not  of 
moral  or  religious  rights.  I  do  not  discuss  the  morals 
of  the  people  of  Missouri,  but  let  them  settle  that 
matter  for  themselves.  I  hold  that  the  people  of  the 
slave-holding  States  are  civilized  men  as  well  as  our- 
selves, that  they  bear  consciences  as  well  as  we,  and 
that  they  are  accountable  to  God  and  their  posterity, 
and  not  to  us.  It  is  for  them  to  decide,  therefore,  the 
moral  and  religious  right  of  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves  within  their  own  limits.  I  assert  that  they 
had  as  much  right  under  the  Constitution  to  adopt  the 
system  of  policy  which  they  have  as  we  had  to  adopt 
ours.  So  it  is  with  every  other  State  in  this  Union. 
Let  each  State  stand  firmly  by  that  great  constitu- 
tional right,  let  each  State  mind  its  own  business  and 
let  its  neighbors  alone,  and  there  will  be  no  trouble  on 
this  question.  If  we  will  stand  by  that  principle,  then 
Mr.  Lincoln  will  find  that  this  republic  can  exist  for- 
ever divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  and  the  people  of  each  State  have  decided. 
Stand  by  that  great  principle,  and  we  can  go  on  as  we 
have  done,  increasing  in  wealth,  in  population,  in 
power,  and  in  all  the  elements  of  greatness,  until  we 
shall  be  the  admiration  and  terror  of  the  world.  We 
can  go  on  and  enlarge  as  our  population  increases  and 
requires  more  room,  until  we  make  this  continent  one 
ocean-bound  republic.  Under  that  principle  the 
United  States  can  perform  that  great  mission,  that 
destiny,  which  Providence  has  marked  out  for  us. 
Under  that  principle  we  can  receive  with  entire  safety 


124  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

that  stream  of  intelligence  which  is  constantly  flowing 
from  the  Old  World  to  the  New,  filling  up  our  prairies, 
clearing  our  wildernesses,  and  building  cities,  towns, 
railroads,  and  other  internal  improvements,  and  thus 
make  this  the  asylum  of  the  oppressed  of  the  whole 
earth.  We  have  this  great  mission  to  perform,  and  it 
can  only  be  performed  by  adhering  faithfully  to  that 
principle  of  self-government  on  which  our  institutions 
were  all  established.  I  repeat  that  the  principle  is  the 
right  of  each  State,  each  Territory,  to  decide  this 
slavery  question  for  itself,  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  it 
chooses,  and  it  does  not  become  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  any- 
body else,  to  tell  the  people  of  Kentucky  that  they  have 
no  consciences,  that  they  are  living  in  a  state  of 
iniquity,  and  that  they  are  cherishing  an  institution  to 
their  bosoms  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  Better 
for  him  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  "Judge  not,  lest  ye 
shall  be  judged."  Let  him  perform  his  own  duty  at 
home,  and  he  will  have  a  better  fate  in  the  future.  I 
think  there  are  objects  of  charity  enough  in  the  free 
States  to  excite  the  sympathies  and  open  the  pockets 
of  all  the  benevolence  we  have  amongst  us,  without 
going  abroad  in  search  of  negroes,  of  whose  condition 
we  know  nothing.  We  have  enough  objects  of  charity 
at  home,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  take  care  of  our  own 
poor,  and  our  own  suffering,  before  we  go  abroad  to 
intermeddle  with  other  people's  business. 

My  friends,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  within  two 
minutes  of  expiring.  I  have  omitted  many  topics  that 
I  would  like  to  have  discussed  before  you  at  length. 
There  were  many  points  touched  by  Mr.  Lincoln  that 
I  have  not  been  able  to  take  up  for  the  want  of  time. 
I  have  hurried  over  each  subject  that  I  have  discussed 
as  rapidly  as  possible,  so  as  to  omit  but  few;  but  one 
hour  and  a  half  is  not  time  sufficient  for  a  man  to  dis- 
cuss at  length  one  half  of  the  great  questions  which  are 
now  dividing  the  public  mind. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  return  to  you  my  grateful 
acknowledgments  for  the  kindness  and  the  courtesy 
with  which  you  have  listened  to  me.  It  is  something 
remarkable  that  in  an  audience  as  vast  as  this,  com- 
posed of  men  of  opposite  politics  and  views,  with  their 
passions  highly  excited,  there  should  be  so  much 
courtesy,  kindness,  and  respect  exhibited  not  only 
toward  one  another,  but  toward  the  speakers,  and  I  feel 


i858]  AT  QUIXCY  125 

that  it  is  due  to  you  that  I  should  thus  express  my 
gratitude  for  the  kindness  with  which  you  have  treated 
me. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder. 

My  Friends:  Since  Judge  Douglas  has  said  to 
you  in  his  conclusion  that  he  had  not  time  in  an 
hour  and  a  half  to  answer  all  I  had  said  in  an 
hour,  it  follows  of  course  that  I  will  not  be  able 
to  answer  in  half  an  hour  all  that  he  said  in  an 
hour  and  a  half. 

I  wish  to  return  to  Judge  Douglas  my  pro- 
found thanks  for  his  public  annunciation  here  to- 
day to  be  put  on  record,  that  his  system  of  policy 
in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  contem- 
plates that  it  shall  last  forever.  We  are  getting 
a  little  nearer  the  true  issue  of  this  controversy, 
and  I  am  profoundly  grateful  for  this  one  sen- 
tence. Judge  Douglas  asks  you,  '*Why  cannot 
the  institution  of  slavery,  or  rather,  why  cannot 
the  nation,  part  slave  and  part  free,  continue  as 
our  fathers  made  it  forever?"  In  the  first  place, 
I  insist  that  our  fathers  did  not  make  this  nation 
half  slave  and  half  free,  or  part  slave  and  part 
free.  I  insist  that  thev  found  the  institution  of 
slavery  existing  here.  They  did  not  make  it  so, 
but  they  left  it  so  because  they  knew  of  no  way 
to  get  rid  of  it  at  that  time.  When  Judge  Doug- 
las undertakes  to  say  that,  as  a  matter  of  choice, 
the  fathers  of  the  government  made  this  nation 
part  slave  and  part  free,  he  assumes  what  is  his- 
torically a  falsehood,  ^lore  than  that :  when  the 
fathers  of  the  government  cut  off  the  source  of 
slavery  by  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  and 
adopted  a  system  of  restricting  it  from  the  new 
Territories  where  it  had  not  existed,  I  maintain 


126  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  13 

that  they  placed  it  where  they  understood,  and 
all  sensible  men  understood,  it  was  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction;  and  when  Judge  Douglas 
asks  me  why  it  cannot  continue  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  I  ask  him  why  he  and  his  friends  could 
not  let  it  remain  as  our  fathers  made  it? 

It  is  precisely  all  I  ask  of  him  in  relation  to 
the  institution  of  slavery,  that  it  shall  be  placed 
upon  the  basis  that  our  fathers  placed  it  upon. 
Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  once  said,  and 
truly  said,  that  when  this  government  was  es- 
tablished, no  one  expected  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery to  last  until  this  day ;  and  that  the  men  who 
formed  this  government  were  wiser  and  better 
than  the  men  of  these  days ;  but  the  men  of  these 
days  had  experience  which  the  fathers  had  not, 
and  that  experience  had  taught  them  the  inven- 
tion of  the  cotton-gin,  and  this  had  made  the  per- 
petuation of  the  institution  of  slavery  a  necessity 
in  this  country.  Judge  Douglas  could  not  let  it 
stand  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers  placed 
it,  but  removed  it,  and  put  it  upon  the  cotton-gin 
basis.  It  is  a  question,  therefore,  for  him  and  his 
friends  to  answer — why  they  could  not  let  it  re- 
main where  the  fathers  of  the  government  origi- 
nally placed  it. 

I  hope  nobody  has  understood  me  as  trying 
to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  we  have  a  right  to 
quarrel  with  Kentucky  or  Virginia,  or  any  of  the 
slave  States,  about  the  institution  of  slavery — 
thus  giving  the  judge  an  opportunity  to  make 
himself  eloquent  and  valiant  against  us  in  fight- 
ing for  their  rights.  I  expressly  declared  in  my 
opening  speech  that  I  had  neither  the  inclination 
to  exercise,  nor  the  belief  in  the  existence  of, 
the  right  to  interfere  with  the  States  of  Ken- 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  127 

tucky  or  Virginia  in  doing  as  they  pleased  with 
slavery  or  any  other  existing  institution.  Then 
what  becomes  of  all  his  eloquence  in  behalf  of 
the  rights  of  States,  which  are  assailed  by  no 
living  man? 

But  I  have  no  hurry  on,  for  I  have  but  a  half- 
hour.  The  judge  has  informed  me,  or  informed 
this  audience,  that  the  Washington  Union  is 
laboring  for  my  election  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  This  is  news  to  me — not  very  ungrate- 
ful news  either.  [Turning  to  Mr.  IV.  H.  CarUn, 
ivho  zuas  on  the  stand:]  I  hope  that  Carlin  will 
be  elected  to  the  State  Senate  and  will  vote  for 
me.  [Mr.  Carlin  shook  his  head.]  Carlin  don't 
fall  in,  I  perceive,  and  I  suppose  he  will  not  do 
much  for  me ;  but  I  am  glad  of  all  the  support  I 
can  get  anywhere,  if  I  can  get  it  without  prac- 
tising any  deception  to  obtain  it.  In  respect  to 
this  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  in 
which  he  tries  to  show  that  in  the  controversy 
between  himself  and  the  administration  party  he 
is  in  the  right,  I  do  not  feel  myself  at  all  com- 
petent or  inclined  to  answer  him.  I  say  to  him. 
Give  it  to  them — give  it  to  them  just  all  you  can; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  say  to  Carlin,  and  Jake 
Davis,  and  to  this  man  Wagley  up  here  in  Han- 
cock, Give  it  to  Douglas — just  pour  it  into  him. 

Now  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two.  After  all, 
the  judge  will  not  say  whether,  if  a  decision  is 
made  holding  that  the  people  of  the  States  can- 
not exclude  slavery,  he  will  support  it  or  not. 
He  obstinately  refuses  to  say  what  he  will  do  in 
that  case.  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court 
as  obstinately  refused  to  say  what  they  would  do 
on  this  subject.    Before  this  I  reminded  him  that 


128  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

at  Galesburg  he  said  the  judges  had  expressly- 
declared  the  contrary,  and  you  remember  that  in 
my  opening  speech  I  told  him  I  had  the  book 
containing  that  decision  here,  and  I  would  thank 
him  to  lay  his  finger  on  the  place  where  any 
such  thing  was  said.  He  has  occupied  his  hour 
and  a  half,  and  he  has  not  ventured  to  try  to  sus- 
tain his  assertion.  He  never  will.  But  he  is 
desirous  of  knowing  how  we  are  going  to  reverse 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Judge  Douglas  ought 
to  know  how.  Did  not  he  and  his  political  friends 
find  a  way  to  reverse  the  decision  of  that  same 
court  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  na- 
tional bank?  Didn't  they  find  a  way  to  do  it  so 
effectually  that  they  have  reversed  it  as  com- 
pletely as  any  decision  ever  was  reversed,  so  far 
as  its  practical  operation  is  concerned?  And, 
let  me  ask  you,  didn't  Judge  Douglas  find  a  way 
to  reverse  the  decision  of  our  Supreme  Court, 
when  it  decided  that  Carlin's  father — old  Gov- 
ernor Carlin — had  not  the  constitutional  power 
to  remove  a  secretary  of  state?  Did  he  not  ap- 
peal to  the  ''mobs,"  as  he  calls  them?  Did  he 
not  make  speeches  in  the  lobby  to  show  how  vil- 
lainous that  decision  was,  and  how  it  ought  to 
be  overthrown  ?  Did  he  not  succeed,  too,  in  get- 
ting an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  to  have  it 
overthrown  ?  And  didn't  he  himself  sit  down  on 
that  bench  as  one  of  the  five  added  judges  who 
were  to  overslaugh  the  four  old  ones — getting 
his  name  of  "judge"  in  that  way  and  in  no  other? 
If  there  is  a  villainy  in  using  disrespect  or  mak- 
ing opposition  to  Supreme  Court  decisions,  I 
commend  it  to  Judge  Douglas's  earnest  consider- 
ation. I  know  of  no  man  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
who  ought  to  know  so  well  about  how  much  vil- 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  129 

lainy  it  takes  to  oppose  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  as  our  honorable  friend,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas. 

Judge  Douglas  also  makes  the  declaration  that 
I  say  the  Democrats  are  bound  by  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  while  the  Republicans  are  not.  In  the 
sense  in  which  he  argues,  I  never  said  it;  but  I 
will  tell  you  what  I  have  said  and  what  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  repeat  to-day.  I  have  said  that,  as 
the  Democrats  believe  that  decision  to  be  correct, 
and  that  the  extension  of  slavery  is  affirmed  in 
the  National  Constitution,  they  are  bound  to  sup- 
port it  as  such ;  and  I  will  tell  you  here  that  Gen- 
eral Jackson  once  said  each  man  was  bound  to 
support  the  Constitution,  *'as  he  understood  it." 
Now,  Judge  Douglas  understands  the  Constitu- 
tion according  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  he 
is  bound  to  support  it  as  he  understands  it.  I 
understand  it  another  way,  and  therefore  I  am 
bound  to  support  it  in  the  way  in  which  I  under- 
stand it.  And  as  Judge  Douglas  believes  that 
decision  to  be  correct,  I  will  remake  that  argu- 
ment if  I  have  time  to  do  so.  Let  me  talk  to 
some  gentleman  down  there  among  you  who 
looks  me  in  the  face.  We  will  say  you  are  a 
member  of  the  territorial  legislature,  and,  like 
Judge  Douglas,  you  believe  that  the  right  to  take 
and  hold  slaves  there  is  a  constitutional  right. 
The  first  thing  you  do  is  to  swear  you  will  sup- 
port the  Constitution  and  all  rights  guaranteed 
therein ;  that  you  will,  whenever  your  neighbor 
needs  your  legislation  to  support  his  constitu- 
tional rights,  not  withhold  that  legislation.  If 
you  withhold  that  necessary  legislation  for  the 
support  of  the  Constitution  and  constitutional 
rights,  do  you  not  commit  perjury?    I  ask  every 


I30  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

sensible  man  if  that  is  not  so?  That  is  undoubt- 
edly just  so,  say  what  you  please.  Now,  that  is 
precisely  what  Judge  Douglas  says — that  this  is 
a  constitutional  right.  Does  the  judge  mean  to 
say  that  the  territorial  legislature  in  legislating 
may,  by  withholding  necessary  laws  or  by  pass- 
ing unfriendly  laws,  nullify  that  constitutional 
right?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that?  Does  he 
mean  to  ignore  the  proposition,  so  long  and  well 
established  in  law,  that  what  you  cannot  do  di- 
rectly, you  cannot  do  indirectly?  Does  he  mean 
that  ?  The  truth  about  the  matter  is  this :  Judge 
Douglas  has  sung  paeans  to  his  ''popular  sover- 
eignty" doctrine  until  his  Supreme  Court,  co- 
operating with  him,  has  squatted  his  squatter 
sovereignty  out.  But  he  will  keep  up  this  species 
of  humbuggery  about  squatter  sovereignty.  He 
has  at  last  invented  this  sort  of  do-nothing  sov- 
ereignty— that  the  people  may  exclude  slavery 
by  a  sort  of  "sovereignty"  that  is  exercised  by 
doing  nothing  at  all.  Is  not  that  running  his 
popular  sovereignty  down  awfully?  Has  it  not 
got  down  as  thin  as  the  homeopathic  soup  that 
was  made  by  boiling  the  shadow  of  a  pigeon  that 
had  starved  to  death?  But  at  last,  when  it  is 
brought  to  the  test  of  close  reasoning,  there  is 
not  even  that  thin  decoction  of  it  left.  It  is  a 
presumption  impossible  in  the  domain  of 
thought.  It  is  precisely  no  other  than  the  putting 
of  that  most  unphilosophical  proposition,  that 
two  bodies  can  occupy  the  same  space  at  the 
same  time.  The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the 
whole  ground,  and  while  it  occupies  it,  there  is 
no  room  even  for  the  shadow  of  a  starved  pigeon 
to  occupy  the  same  ground. 

Judge  Douglas,  in  reply  to  what  I  have  said 


i8s8]  AT  QUINCY  131 

about  having"  upon  a  previous  occasion  made  the 
same  speech  at  Ottawa  as  the  one  he  took  an  ex- 
tract from  at  Charleston,  says  it  only  shows  that 
I  practised  the  deception  twice.  Now,  my 
friends,  are  any  of  you  obtuse  enough  to  swallow 
that?  Judge  Douglas  had  said  that  I  made  a 
speech  at  Charleston  that  I  would  not  make  up 
north,  and  I  turned  around  and  answered  him  by 
showing  I  had  made  that  same  speech  up  north 
— had  made  it  at  Ottawa — made  it  in  his  hearing 
— made  in  the  Abolition  district — in  Love  joy's 
district — in  the  personal  presence  of  Love  joy 
himself — in  the  same  atmosphere  exactly  in 
which  I  had  made  my  Chicago  speech,  of  which 
he  complains  of  so  much. 

Now,  in  relation  to  my  not  having  said  any- 
thing about  the  quotation  from  the  Chicago 
speech.  He  thinks  that  is  a  terrible  subject  for 
me  to  handle.  Why,  gentlemen,  I  can  show  you 
that  the  substance  of  the  Chicago  speech  I  de- 
livered two  years  ago  in  ''Egypt,"  as  he  calls  it. 
It  was  down  at  Springfield.  That  speech  is  here 
in  this  book,  and  I  could  turn  to  it  and  read  it 
to  you  but  for  the  lack  of  time.  I  have  not  now 
the  time  to  read  it.  ["Read  it,  read  it/']  No, 
gentlemen,  I  am  obliged  to  use  discretion  in  dis- 
posing most  advantageously  of  my  brief  time. 
The  judge  has  taken  great  exception  to  my 
adopting  the  heretical  statement  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  that  "all  men  are  created 
equal,"  and  he  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about 
negro  equality.  I  want  to  say  that  in  sometimes 
alluding  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  I 
have  only  uttered  the  sentiments  that  Henry 
Clay  used  to  hold.  Allow  me  to  occupy  your 
time  a  moment  with  what  he  said.    Mr.  Clay  was 


•  132  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

at  one  time  called  upon  in  Indiana,  and  in  a  way 
-that  I  suppose  was  very  insulting,  to  liberate  his 
slaves,  and  he  made  a  written  reply  to  that  ap- 
plication, and  one  portion  of  it  is  in  these  words: 

What  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in 
Indiana  to  liberate  the  slaves  under  my  care  in  Ken- 
tucky? It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announc- 
ing to  the  world  the  independence  of  the  thirteen 
American  colonies,  that  "men  are  created  equal." 
Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  that  declaration,  and  it  is  desirable  in  the 
original  construction  of  society,  and  in  organized 
•societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental 
principle. 

When  I  sometimes,  in  relation  to  the  organi- 
zation of  new  societies  in  new  countries,  where 
the  soil  is  clean  and  clear,  insist  that  we  should 
keep  that  principle  in  view,  Judge  Douglas  will 
have  it  that  I  want  a  negro  wife.  He  never  can 
be  brought  to  understand  that  there  is  any  middle 
ground  on  this  subject.  I  have  lived  until  my 
fiftieth  year,  and  have  never  had  a  negro  woman 
either  for  a  slave  or  a  wife,  and  I  think  I  can 
live  fifty  centuries,  for  that  matter,  without  hav- 
ing had  one  for  either.  I  maintain  that  you  may 
take  Judge  Douglas's  quotations  from  my  Chi- 
cago speech,  and  from  my  Charleston  speech, 
and  the  Galesburg  speech, — in  his  speech  of  to- 
day,— and  compare  them  over,  and  I  am  willing 
to  trust  them  with  you  upon  his  proposition  that 
they  show  rascality  or  double-dealing.  I  deny 
that  they  do. 

The  judge  does  not  seem  disposed  to  have 
peace,  but  I  find  he  is  disposed  to  have  a  per- 
sonal warfare  with  me.  He  says  that  my  oath 
would  not  be  taken  against  the  bare  word  of 


1858]  AT  QUINCY  133 

Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas  L.  Harris. 
Well,  that  is  altogether  a  matter  of  opinion.  It 
is  certainly  not  for  me  to  vaunt  my  word  against 
the  oaths  of  these  gentlemen,  but  I  will  tell  Judge 
Douglas  again  the  facts  upon  which  I  ''dared" 
to  say  they  proved  a  forgery.  I  pointed  out  at 
Galesburg  that  the  publication  of  these  resolu- 
tions in  the  Illinois  State  Register  could  not  have 
been  the  result  of  accident,  as  the  proceedings 
of  that  meeting  bore  unmistakable  evidence  of 
being  done  by  a  man  who  knew  it  was  a  forgery ; 
that  it  was  a  publication  partly  taken  from  the 
real  proceedings  of  the  convention,  and  partly 
from  the  proceedings  of  a  convention  at  another 
place ;  which  showed  that  he  had  the  real  pro- 
ceedings before  him,  and,  taking  one  part  of  the 
resolutions,  he  threw  out  another  part,  and  sub- 
stituted false  and  fraudulent  ones  in  their  stead. 
I  pointed  that  out  to  him,  and  also  that  his  friend 
Lanphier,  who  was  editor  of  the  Register  at  that 
time  and  now  is,  must  have  known  how  it  was 
done.  Now  whether  he  did  it,  or  got  some 
friend  to  do  it  for  him,  I  could  not  tell,  but  he 
certainly  knew  all  about  it.  I  pointed  out  to 
Judge  Douglas  that  in  his  Freeport  speech  he 
had  promised  to  investigate  that  matter.  Does 
he  now  say  he  did  not  make  that  promise?  I 
have  a  right  to  ask  why  he  did  not  keep  it?  I 
call  upon  him  to  tell  here  to-day  why  he  did  not 
keep  that  promise?  That  fraud  has  been  traced 
up  so  that  it  lies  between  him,  Harris,  and  Lan- 
phier. There  is  little  room  for  escape  for  Lan- 
phier. Lanphier  is  doing  the  judge  good  service, 
and  Douglas  desires  his  word  to  be  taken  for  the 
truth.  He  desires  Lanphier  to  be  taken  as  au- 
thority in  what  he  states  in  his  newspaper.     He 


134  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  13 

desires  Harris  to  be  taken  as  a  man  of  vast  credi- 
bility, and  when  this  thing  Hes  among  them,  they 
will  not  press  it  to  show  where  the  guilt  really 
belongs.  Now,  as  he  has  said  that  he  would  in- 
vestigate it,  and  implied  that  he  would  tell  us 
the  result  of  his  investigation,  I  demand  of  him 
to  tell  why  he  did  not  investigate  it,  if  he  did 
not;  and  if  he  did,  why  he  won't  tell  the  result. 
I  call  upon  him  for  that. 

This  is  the  third  time  that  Judge  Douglas  has 
assumed  that  he  learned  about  these  resolutions 
by  Harris's  attempting  to  use  them  against  Nor- 
ton on  the  floor  of  Congress.  I  tell  Judge  Doug- 
las the  public  records  of  the  country  show  that 
he  himself  attempted  it  upon  Trumbull  a  month 
before  Harris  tried  them  on  Norton — that  Har- 
ris had  the  opportunity  of  learning  it  from  him, 
rather  than  he  from  Harris.  I  now  ask  his  at- 
tention to  that  part  of  the  record  on  the  case. 
My  friends,  I  am  not  disposed  to  detain  you 
longer  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

I  am  told  that  I  still  have  five  minutes  left. 
There  is  another  matter  I  wish  to  call  attention 
to.  He  says,  when  he  discovered  there  was  a 
mistake  in  that  case,  he  came  forward  magnani- 
mously, without  my  calling  his  attention  to  it, 
and  explained  it.  I  will  tell  you  how  he  became 
so  magnanimous.  When  the  newspapers  of  our 
side  had  discovered  and  published  it,  and  put  it 
beyond  his  power  to  deny  it,  then  he  came  for- 
ward and  made  a  virtue  of  necessity  by  acknowl- 
edging it.  Now  he  argues  that  all  the  point 
there  was  in  those  resolutions,  although  never 
passed  at  Springfield,  is  retained  by  their  being 
passed  at  other  localities.  Is  that  true?  He 
said  I  had  a  hand  in  passing  them,  in  his  open- 


i858]  AT  QUINCY  135 

ing  speech;  that  I  was  in  the  convention,  and 
helped  to  pass  them.  Do  the  resolutions  touch 
me  at  all?  It  strikes  me  there  is  some  differ- 
ence between  holding  a  man  responsible  for  an 
act  which  he  has  not  done,  and  holding  him  re- 
sponsible for  an  act  that  he  has  done.  You  will 
judge  whether  there  is  any  difference  in  the 
''spots."  And  he  has  taken  credit  for  great  mag- 
nanimity in  coming  forward  and  acknowledging 
what  is  proved  on  him  beyond  even  the  capacity 
of  Judge  Douglas  to  deny,  and  he  has  more 
capacity  in  that  way  than  any  other  living  man. 
Then  he  wants  to  know  why  I  won't  withdraw 
the  charge  in  regard  to  a  conspiracy  to  make 
slavery  national,  as  he  had  withdrawn  the  one 
he  made.  May  it  please  his  worship,  I  will  with- 
draw it  when  it  is  proven  false  on  me  as  that  was 
proven  false  on  him.  I  will  add  a  little  more 
than  that.  I  will  withdraw  it  whenever  a  rea- 
sonable man  shall  be  brought  to  believe  that  the 
charge  is  not  true.  I  have  asked  Judge  Doug- 
las's attention  to  certain  matters  of  fact  tending 
to  prove  the  charge  of  a  conspiracy  to  national- 
ize slavery,  and  he  says  he  convinces  me  that 
this  is  all  untrue,  because  Buchanan  was  not  in 
the  country  at  that  time,  and  because  the  Dred 
Scott  case  had  not  then  got  into  the  Supreme 
Court ;  and  he  says  that  I  say  the  Democratic 
owners  of  Dred  Scott  got  up  the  case.  I  never 
did  say  that.  I  defy  Judge  Douglas  to  show 
that  I  ever  said  so,  for  I  never  uttered  it.  [One 
of  Mr.  Douglas's  reporters  gesticulated  afErma- 
tively  at  Mr.  Lincoln.]  I  don't  care  if  your  hire- 
ling does  say  I  did.  I  tell  you  myself  that  I 
never  said  the  ''Democratic"  owners  of  Dred 
Scott  got  up  the  case.    I  have  never  pretended  to 


136  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  is 

know  whether  Dred  Scott's  owners  were  Demo- 
crats or  Abolitionists,  Free-soilers  or  Border 
Ruflftans.  I  have  said  that  there  is  evidence  about 
the  case  tending  to  show  that  it  was  a  made-up 
case  for  the  purpose  of  getting  that  decision.  I 
have  said  that  that  evidence  was  very  strong  in 
the  fact  that  when  Dred  Scott  was  declared  to 
be  a  slave,  the  owner  of  him  made  him  free, 
showing  that  he  had  had  the  case  tried,  and  the 
question  settled,  for  such  use  as  could  be  made 
of  that  decision ;  he  cared  nothing  about  the 
property  thus  declared  to  be  his  by  that  decision. 
But  my  time  is  out,  and  I  can  say  no  more. 


The  Seventh  and  Last  Joint  Debate,  at  Alton. 

October  15,  1858. 

Senator  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  is  now  nearly  four  months 
since  the  canvass  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself 
commenced.  On  the  i6th  of  June  the  Republican  con- 
vention assembled  at  Springfield,  and  nominated  Mr, 
Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  he,  on  that  occasion,  delivered  a  speech  in  which 
he  laid  down  what  he  understood  to  be  the  Republican 
creed,  and  the  platform  on  which  he  proposed  to 
stand  during  the  contest.  The  principal  points  in 
that  speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  were:  First,  that  this 
government  could  not  endure  permanently  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it;  that  they 
must  all  become  free  or  all  become  slave;  all  become 
one  thing  or  all  become  the  other,  otherwise  this 
U^nion  could  not  continue  to  exist.  I  give  you  his 
opinions  almost  in  the  identical  language  he  used. 
His  second  proposition  was  a  crusade  against  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  because  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision;  urging  as  an  especial  reason  for 
his  opposition   to  that   decision  that  it   deprived  the 


1858]  AT  ALTON  137 

negroes  of  the  rights  and  benefits  of  that  clause  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  guarantees  to 
the  citizens  of  each  State  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and 
immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  several  States.  On 
the  loth  of  July  I  returned  home,  and  delivered  a 
speech  to  the  people  of  Chicago,  in  which  I  announced 
it  to  be  my  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  people  of  Illinois 
to  sustain  the  course  I  had  pursued  in  Congress.  In 
that  speech  I  joined  issue  with  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the 
points  which  he  had  presented.  Thus  there  was  an 
issue  clear  and  distinct  made  up  between  us  on  these 
two  propositions  laid  down  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Lin- 
coln at  Springfield,  and  controverted  by  me  in  my 
reply  to  him  at  Chicago.  On  the  next  day,  the  nth 
of  July,  Mr.  Lincoln  replied  to  me  at  Chicago,  ex- 
plaining at  some  length,  and  reaffirming  the 'positions 
which  he  had  taken  in  his  Springfield  speech.  In  that 
Chicago  speech  he  even  went  further  than  he  had  be- 
fore, and  uttered  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  negro 
being  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  He  adopted 
in  support  of  this  position  the  argument  which  Love- 
joy,  and  Codding,  and  other  Abolition  lecturers  had 
made  familiar  in  the  northern  and  central  portions  of 
the  State,  to  wit:  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
having  declared  all  men  free  and  equal  by  Divine  law, 
negro  equality  was  also  an  inalienable  right,  of  which 
they  could  not  be  deprived.  He  insisted,  in  that 
speech,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  included 
the  negro  in  the  clause  asserting  that  all  men  were 
created  equal,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  one 
man  was  allowed  to  take  the  position  that  it  did  not  in- 
clude the  negro,  others  might  take  the  position  that 
it  did  not  include  other  men.  He  said  that  all  these 
distinctions  between  this  man  and  that  man,  this  race 
and  the  other  race,  must  be  discarded,  and  we  must 
all  stand  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  declar- 
ing that  all  men  were  created  equal. 

The  issue  thus  being  made  up  between  Mr.  Lincoln 
and  myself  on  three  points,  we  went  before  the  people 
of  the  State.  During  the  following  seven  weeks, 
between  the  Chicago  speeches  and  our  first  meeting 
at  Ottawa,  he  and  I  addressed  large  assemblages  of 
the  people  in  many  of  the  central  counties.  In  my 
speeches  I  confined  myself  closely  to  those  three 
positions  which  he  had  taken,  controverting  his  prop- 


138  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

osition  that  this  Union  could  not  exist  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  controvert- 
ing ki^  proposition  of  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme 
Court  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  con- 
troverting his  proposition  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  included  and  meant  the  negroes  as  well 
as  the  white  men,  when  it  declared  all  men  to  be  created 
equal.  I  supposed  at  that  time  that  these  propositions 
constituted  a  distinct  issue  between  us,  and  that  the 
opposite  positions  we  had  taken  upon  them  we  would 
be  willing  to  be  held  to  in  every  part  of  the  State.  I 
never  intended  to  waver  one  hair's  breadth  from  that 
issue  either  in  the  north  or  the  south,  or  wherever  I 
should  address  the  people  of  Illinois.  I  hold  that 
when  the  time  arrives  that  I  cannot  proclaim  my 
political  'creed  in  the  same  terms  not  only  in  the 
northern  but  the  southern  part  of  Illinois,  not  only  in 
the  Northern  but  the  Southern  States,  and  wherever 
the  American  flag  waves  over  American  soil,  that  then 
there  must  be  something  wrong  in  that  creed — so  long 
as  we  live  under  a  common  Constitution,  so  long  as  we 
'ive  in  a  confederacy  of  sovereign  and  equal  States, 
joined  together  as  one  for  certain  purposes,  that  any 
political  creed  is  radically  wrong  which  cannot  be 
proclaimed  in  every  State  and  every  section  of  that 
Union,  alike.  I  took  up  Mr.  Lincoln's  three  proposi- 
tions in  my  several  speeches,  analyzed  them,  and 
pointed  out  what  I  believed  to  be  the  radical  errors 
contained  in  them.  First,  in  regard  to  his  doctrine 
that  this  government  was  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
God,  which  says  that  a  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand;  I  repudiated  it  as  a  slander  upon  the 
immortal  framers  of  our  Constitution.  I  then  said,  I 
have  often  repeated,  and  now  again  assert,  that  in  my 
opinion  our  government  can  endure  forever,  divided 
into  free  and  slave  States  as  our  fathers  made  it — 
each  State  having  the  right  to  prohibit,  abolish,  or 
sustain  slavery,  just  as  it  pleases.  This  government 
was  made  upon  the  great  basis  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States,  the  right  of  each  State  to  regulate  its  own 
domestic  institutions  to  suit  itself,  and  that  right  was 
conferred  with  the  understanding  and  expectation  that 
inasmuch  at  each  locality  had  separate  interests,  each 
locality  must  have  different  and  distinct  local  and 
domestic  institutions,  corresponding  to  its  wants  and 


;i858]  AT  ALTON  139 

interests.  Our  fathers  knew,  when  they  made  the 
government,  that  the  laws  and  institutions  v/hich  were 
well  adapted  to  the  green  mountains  of  Vermont  were 
unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina. 
They  knew  then,  as  well  as  we  know  now,  that  the 
laws  and  institutions  which  would  be  well  adapted  to 
the  beautiful  prairies  of  Illinois  would  not  be  suited  to 
the  mining  regions  of  California.  They  knew  that  in  a 
republic  as  broad  as  this,  having  such  a  variety  of 
soil,  climate,  and  interest,  there  must  necessarily  be  a 
corresponding  variety  of  local  laws — the  policy  and 
institutions  of  each  State  adapted  to  its  condition  and 
wants.  For  this  reason  this  Union  was  established  on 
the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the 
question  of  slavery,  and  every  other  question,  and  the 
various  States  were  not  allowed  to  complain  of,  much 
less  interfere  with,  the  policy  of  their  neighbors. 

Suppose  the  doctrine  advocated  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
the  Abolitionists  of  this  day  had  prevailed  when  the 
Constitution  was  made,  what  would  have  been  the 
result?  Imagine  for  a  moment  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
been  a  member  of  the  convention  that  framed  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  that  when  its  mem- 
bers were  about  to  sign  that  wonderful  document,  he 
had  arisen  in  that  convention,  as  he  did  at  Springfield 
this  summer,  and  addressing  himself  to  the  President, 
had  said:  "A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand; 
this  government,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States, 
cannot  endure;  they  must  all  be  free  or  all  be  slave, 
they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  the  other;  otherwise, 
it  is  a  violation  of  the  lav/  of  God,  and  cannot  continue 
to  exist" — suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  had  convinced  that 
body  of  sages  that  that  doctrine  was  sound,  what 
would  have  been  the  result?  Remember  that  the 
Union  was  then  composed  of  thirteen  States,  twelve 
of  which  were  slave-holding  and  one  free.  Do  you 
think  that  the  one  free  State  would  have  out-voted  the 
twelve  slave-holding  States,  and  thus  have  secured  the 
abolition  of  slavery?  On  the  other  hand,  would  not 
the  twelve  slave-holding  States  have  out-voted  the  one 
free  State,  and  thus  have  fastened  slavery,  by  a 
constitutional  provision,  on  every  foot  of  the  American 
republic  forever?  You  see  that  if  this  Abolition  doc- 
trine of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  prevailed  when  the  govern- 
ment was  made,  it  would  have  established  slavery  as 


I40  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  15 

a  permanent  institution,  in  all  the  States,  whether  they 
wanted  it  or  not;  and  the  question  for  us  to  determine 
in  Illinois  now,  as  one  of  the  free  States,  is  whether  or 
not  we  are  willing,  having  become  the  majority  sec- 
tion, to  enforce  a  doctrine  on  the  minority  which  we 
would  have  resisted  with  our  hearts'  blood  had  it  been 
attempted  on  us  when  we  were  in  a  minority.  How 
has  the  South  lost  her  power  as  the  majority  section  in 
this  Union,  and  how  have  the  free  States  gained  it, 
except  under  the  operation  of  that  principle  which  de- 
clares the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each 
Territory  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu- 
tions in  their  own  way?  It  was  under  that  principle 
that  slavery  was  abolished  in  New  Hampshire,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and 
Pennsylvania;  it  was  under  that  principle  that  one 
half  of  the  slave-holding  States  became  free;  it  was 
under  that  principle  that  the  number  of  free  States  in- 
creased until,  from  being  one  out  of  twelve  States,  we 
have  grown  to  be  the  majority  of  States  of  the  whole 
Union,  with  the  power  to  control  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  Senate,  and  the  power,  consequently,  to 
elect  a  President  by  Northern  votes  without  the  aid  of 
a  Southern  State.  Having  obtained  this  power  under 
the  operation  of  that  great  principle,  are  you  now 
prepared  to  abandon  the  principle,  and  declare  that 
merely  because  we  have  the  power  you  will  wage  a  war 
against  the  Southern  States  and  their  institutions  until 
you  force  them  to  abolish  slavery  everywhere? 

After  having  pressed  these  arguments  home  on  Mr. 
Lincoln  for  seven  weeks,  publishing  a  number  of  my 
speeches,  we  met  at  Ottawa  in  joint  discussion,  and  he 
then  began  to  crawfish  a  little,  and  let  himself  down. 
I  there  propounded  certain  questions  to  him.  Amongst 
others,  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  for  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  in  the  event  the 
people  wanted  them.  He  would  not  answer.  I  then 
told  him  that  if  he  did  not  answer  the  question  there 
I  would  renew  it  at  Freeport,  and  would  then  trot  him 
down  into  Egypt  and  again  put  it  to  him.  Well,  at 
Freeport,  knowing  that  the  next  joint  discussion  took 
place  in  Egypt,  and  being  in  dread  of  it,  he  did  answer 
my  question  in  regard  to  no  more  slave  States  in  a 
mode  which  he  hoped  would  be  satisfactory  to  me, 
and  accomplish  the  object  he  had  in  view.    I  will  show 


1858]  AT  ALTON  141 

you  what  his  answer  was.  After  saying  that  he  was 
not  pledged  to  the  Republican  doctrine  of  "no  more 
slave  States,"  he  declared: 

I  state  to  you  freely,  frankly,  that  I  should  be  exceed- 
ingly sorry  to  ever  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to 
pass  upon  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to 
know  that  there  never  would  be  another  slave  State  ad- 
mitted  into   this   Union. 

Here  permit  me  to  remark  that  I  do  not  think  the 
people  will  ever  force  him  into  a  position  against  his 
will.     He  went  on  to  say: 

But  I  must  add,  in  regard  to  this,  that  if  slavery  shall 
be  kept  out  of  the  Territory  during  the  territorial  exist- 
ence of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people 
should — having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field  when  they 
come  to  adopt  a  constitution — if  they  should  do  the  ex- 
traordinary thing  of  adopting  a  slave  constitution,  unin- 
fluenced by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among 
them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the  country,  but  we 
must  admit  it  into  this  Union. 

That  answer  Mr.  Lincoln  supposed  would  satisfy 
the  old-line  Whigs,  composed  of  Kentuckians  and 
Virginians,  down  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State. 
Now,  what  does  it  amount  to?  I  desired  to  know 
whether  he  would  vote  to  allow  Kansas  to  come  into 
the  Union  with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  desired. 
He  would  not  answer,  but  in  a  roundabout  way  said 
that  if  slavery  should  be  kept  out  of  a  Territory  dur- 
ing the  whole  of  its  territorial  existence,  and  then  the 
people,  when  they  adopted  a  State  constitution,  asked 
admission  as  a  slave  State,  he  supposed  he  would  have 
to  let  the  State  come  in.  The  case  I  put  to  him  was 
an  entirely  different  one.  I  desired  to  know  whether 
he  would  vote  to  admit  a  State  if  Congress  had  not 
prohibited  slavery  in  it  during  its  territorial  existence, 
as  Congress  never  pretended  to  do  under  Clay's  com- 
promise measures  of  1850.  He  would  not  answer,  and 
I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  get  an  answer  from  hirn. 
I  have  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit 
Nebraska  if  her  people  asked  to  come  in  as  a  State 
with  a  constitution  recognizing  slavery,  and  he  refused 
to  answer.  I  have  put  the  question  to  him  with 
reference  to   New   Mexico,  and  he  has  not  uttered  a 


,l4r2  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

word  in  answer.  I  have  enumerated  the  Territories, 
one  after  another,  putting  the  same  question  to  him 
with  reference  to  each,  and  he  has  not  said,  and 
will  not  say,  whether,  if  elected  to  Congress,  he  will 
vote  to  admit  any  Territory  now  in  existence  with  such 
a  constitution  as  her  people  may  adopt.  He  invents  a 
case  which  does  not  exist,  and  cannot  exist,  under  this 
government,  and  answers  it;  but  he  will  not  answer  the 
question  I  put  to  him  in  connection  with  any  of  the 
Territories  now  in  existence.  The  contract  we  entered 
into  with  Texas  when  she  entered  the  Union  obliges  us 
to  allow  four  States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  old  State, 
and  admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  respective 
inhabitants  of  each  may  determine.  I  have  asked  Mr. 
Lincoln  three  times  in  our  joint  discussions  whether  he 
would  vote  to  redeem  that  pledge,  and  he  has  never  yet 
answered.  He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject. 
He  would  rather  answer  as  to  a  state  of  the  case  which 
will  never  arise  than  commit  himself  by  telling  what 
he  would  do  in  a  case  which  would  come  up  for  his 
action  soon  after  his  election  to  Congress.  Why  can 
he  not  say  whether  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  people  of 
each  State  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they  please,  and 
to  come  into  the  Union  when  they  have  the  requisite 
population  as  a  slave  or  a  free  State,  as  they  decide?  I 
have  no  trouble  in  answering  the  question.  I  have 
said  everywhere,  and  now  repeat  it  to  you,  that  if  the 
people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  State  they  have  a  right, 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  form 
such  a  State,  and  I  will  let  them  come  into  the  Union 
with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  they  determine.  If  the 
people  of  any  other  Territory  desire  slavery,  let  them 
have  it.  If  they  do  not  want  it,  let  them  prohibit  it. 
It  is  their  business,  not  mine.  It  is  none  of  our  business 
in  Illinois  whether  Kansas  is  a  free  State  or  a  slave 
State.  It  is  none  of  your  business  in  Missouri  whether 
Kansas  shall  adopt  slavery  or  reject  it.  It  is  the 
business  of  her  people  and  none  of  yours.  The  people 
of  Kansas  have  as  much  right  to  decide  that  question 
for  themselves  as  you  have  in  Missouri  to  decide  it  for 
yourselves,  or  we  in  Illinois  to  decide  it  for  ourselves. 
And  here  I  may  repeat  what  I  have  said  in  every 
speech  I  have  made  in  Illinois,  that  I  fought  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  to  its  death,  not  because  of  the 
slavery  clause  in  it,   but  because  it  was  not  the  act 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  ,  143 

and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  ^  said  then  in 
Congress,  and  I  say  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas 
want  a  slave  State,  they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  If 
they  wanted  the  Lecompton  constitution,  they  had  a 
right  to  have  it.  I  was  opposed  to  that  constitution 
because  I  did  not  believe  that  it  was  the  act  and  deed 
of  the  people,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  act  of  a  small, 
pitiful  minority,  acting  in  the  name  of  the  majority. 
When  at  last  it  was  determined  to  send  that  constitu- 
tion back  to  the  people,  and  accordingly,  in  August  last, 
the  question  of  admission  under  it  was  submitted  to  a 
popular  vote,  the  citizens  rejected  it  by  nearly  ten  to 
one,  thus  showing  conclusively  that  I  was  right  v/hen 
I  said  that  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  not  the 
act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not 
embody  their  will. 

I  hold  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  under  our 
system  of  government,  which  has  the  right  to  force  a 
constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people.  Suppose  that 
there  had  been  a  majority  of  ten  to  one  in  favor  of 
slavery  in  Kansas,  and  suppose  there  had  been  an 
Abolition  President,  and  an  Abolition  administration, 
and  by  some  means  the  Abolitionists  succeeded  in 
forcing  an  Abolition  constitution  on  those  slave-hold- 
ing people,  would  the  people  of  the  South  have  sub- 
mitted to  that  act  for  one  instant?  Well,  if  you  of  the 
South  would  not  have  submitted  to  it  a  day,  how  can 
you,  as  fair,  honorable,  and  honest  men,  insist  on 
putting  a  slave  constitution  on  a  people  who  desire  a 
free  State.  Your  safety  and  ours  depend  upon  both 
of  us  acting  in  good  faith,  and  living  up  to  that  great 
principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  every  people  to 
form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit 
themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Most  of  the  men  who  denounced  my  course  on  the 
Lecompton  question  objected  to  it  not  because  I  was 
not  right,  but  because  they  thought  it  expedient  at 
that  time,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  party  together, 
to  do  wrong.  I  never  knew  the  Democratic  party  to 
violate  any  one  of  its  principles  out  of  policy  or 
expediency,  that  it  did  not  pay  the  debt  with  sorrow. 
There  is  no  safety  or  success  for  our  party  unless  we 
always  do  right,  and  trust  the  consequences  to  God 
and  the  people.     I  chose  not  to  depart  from  principle 


144  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  15 

for  the  sake  of  expediency  in  the  Lecompton  question, 
and  I  never  intend  to  do  it  on  that  or  any  other 
question. 

But  I  am  told  that  I  would  have  been  all  right  if  I 
had  only  voted  for  the  English  bill  after  Lecompton 
was  killed.  You  know  a  general  pardon  was  granted 
to  all  political  offenders  on  the  Lecompton  question, 
provided  they  would  only  vote  for  the  English  bill.  I 
did  not  accept  the  benefits  of  that  pardon,  for  the 
reason  that  I  had  been  right  in  the  course  I  had  pur- 
sued, and  hence  did  not  require  any  forgiveness.  Let 
us  see  how  the  result  has  been  worked  out  English 
brought  in  his  bill  referring  the  Lecompton  constitu- 
tion back  to  the  people,  with  the  provision  that  if  it 
was  rejected  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union 
until  she  had  the  full  ratio  of  population  required  for 
a  member  of  Congress,  thus  in  effect  declaring  that  if 
the  people  of  Kansas  would  only  consent  to  come  into 
the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  and  have 
a  slave  State  when  they  did  not  want  it,  they  should 
be  admitted  with  a  population  of  35,000;  but  that  if 
they  were  so  obstinate  as  to  insist  upon  having  just 
such  a  constitution  as  they  thought  best,  and  to  desire 
admission  as  a  free  State,  then  they  should  be  kept  out 
until  they  had  93,420  inhabitants.  I  then  said,  and  I 
now  repeat  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas  has  people 
enough  for  a  slave  State  she  has  people  enough  for  a 
free  State.  I  was,  and  am,  willing  to  adopt  the  rule 
that  no  State  shall  ever  come  into  the  Union  until 
she  has  the  full  ratio  of  population  for  a  member  of 
Congress,  provided  that  rule  is  made  uniform.  I 
made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate  last  winter,  but  a 
majority  of  the  senators  would  not  agree  to  it;  and  I 
then  said  to  them,  "If  you  will  not  adopt  the  general 
rule,  I  will  not  consent  to  make  an  exception  of 
Kansas." 

I  hold  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  this  government  to  throw  the  weight  of 
federal  power  into  the  scale,  either  in  favor  of  the 
free  or  the  slave  States.  Equality  among  all  the  States 
of  this  Union  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  political 
system.  We  have  no  more  right  to  throw  the  weight 
of  the  Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of 
the  slave-holding  than  of  the  free  States,  and,  least  of 
all,    should   our   friends   in   the    South   consent   for   a 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  145 

moment  that  Congress  should  withhold  its  powers 
either  way  when  they  know  that  there  is  a  majority 
against  them  in  both  houses  of  Congress. 

Fellow-citizens,  how  have  the  supporters  of  the 
English  bill  stood  up  to  their  pledges  not  to  admit 
Kansas  until  she  obtained  a  population  of  93,420  in 
the  event  she  rejected  the  Lecompton  constitution? 
How?  The  newspapers  inform  us  that  English  him- 
self, whilst  conducting  his  canvass  for  reelection,  and 
in  order  to  secure  it,  pledged  himself  to  his  constituents 
that  if  returned  he  would  disregard  his  own  bill  and 
vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  such  popula- 
tion as  she  might  have  when  she  made  application. 
We  are  informed  that  every  Democratic  candidate  for 
Congress  in  all  the  States  where  elections  have  recently 
been  held  was  pledged  against  the  English  bill,  with 
perhaps  one  or  two  exceptions.  Now,  if  I  had  only 
done  as  these  anti-Lecompton  men  who  voted  for  the 
English  bill  in  Congress,  pledging  themselves  to  refuse 
to  admit  Kansas  if  she  refused  to  become  a  slave 
State  until  she  had  a  population  of  92,420,  and  then 
returned  to  their  people,  forfeited  their  pledge,  and 
made  a  new  pledge  to  admit  Kansas  any  time  she 
applied,  without  regard  to  population.  I  would  have 
had  no  trouble.  You  saw  the  whole  power  and  patron- 
age of  the  Federal  Government  wielded  in  Indiana, 
Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  to  elect  anti-Lecompton  men 
to  Congress,  who  voted  against  Lecompton,  then  voted 
for  the  English  bill,  and  then  denounced  the  English 
bill,  and  pledged  themselves  to  their  people  to  dis- 
regard it.  My  sin  consists  in  not  having  given  a 
pledge,  and  then  in  not  having  afterward  forfeited  it. 
For  that  reason,  in  this  State,  every  postmaster,  every 
route  agent,  every  collector  of  the  ports,  and  every 
federal  office-holder,  forfeits  his  head  the  moment  he 
expresses  a  preference  for  the  Democratic  candidates 
against  Lincoln  and  his  Abolition  associates.  A  Demo- 
cratic administration,  which  we  helped  to  bring  into 
power,  deems  it  consistent  with  its  fidelity  to  principle, 
and  its  regard  to  duty,  to  wield  its  power  in  this 
State  in  behalf  of  the  Republican  Abolition  candidates 
in  every  county  and  every  congressional  district 
against  the  Democratic  party.  All  I  have  to  say  in 
reference  to  the  matter  is  that  if  that  administration 
have  not  regard  enough  for  principle,  if  they  are  not 


J46  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

•sufficiently  attached  to  the  creed  of  the  Democratic 
party  to  bury  forever  their  personal  hostilities  in  order 
to  succeed  in  carrying  out  our  glorious  principles,  I 
have.  I  have  fio  personal  difficulty  with  Mr.  Buchanan 
or  his  cabinet.  He  chose  to  make  certain  recom- 
mendations to  Congress,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  on 
the  Lecompton  question.  I  could  not  vote  in  favor 
of  them.  I  had  as  much  right  to  judge  for  myself  how 
I  should  vote  as  he  had  how  he  should  recommend. 
He  undertook  to  say  to  me,  ''If  you  do  not  vote  as  I 
tell  you,  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your  friends."  I 
replied  to  him,  "You  did  not  elect  me;  I  represent 
Illinois,  and  I  am  accountable  to  Illinois,  as  my  con- 
stituency, and  to  God,  but  not  to  the  President  or  to 
any  other  power  on  earth." 

And  now  this  warfare  is  made  on  me  because  I 
would  not  surrender  my  convictions  of  duty,  because  I 
would  not  abandon  my  constituency,  and  receive  the 
orders  of  the  executive  authorities  how  I  should  vote 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  I  hold  that  an 
attempt  to  control  the  Senate  on  the  part  of  the  execu- 
tive is  subversive  of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution. 
The  executive  department  is  independent  of  the  Seriate, 
and  the  Senate  is  independent  of  the  President.  In 
matters  of  legislation  the  President  has  a  veto  on  the 
action  of  the  Senate,  and  in  appointments  and  treaties 
the  Senate  has  a  veto  on  the  President.  He  has  no 
niore  right  to  tell  me  how  I  shall  vote  on  his  appoint- 
ments than  I  have  to  tell  him  whether  he  shall  veto 
or  approve  a  bill  that  the  Senate  has  passed.  When- 
ever you  recognize  the  right  of  the  executive  to  say  to 
a  senator,  "Do  this,  or  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your 
friends,"  you  convert  this  government  from  a  republic 
into  a  despotism.  Whenever  you  recognize  the  right 
of  a  President  to  say  to  a  member  of  Congress,  "Vote 
as  I  tell  you,  or  I  will  bring  a  power  to  bear  against 
you  at  home  which  will  crush  you,"  you  destroy  the 
independence  of  the  representative,  and  convert  him 
into  a  tool  of  executive  power.  I  resisted  this  invasion 
of  the  constitutional  rights  of  a  senator,  and  I  intend 
to  resist  it  as  long  as  I  have  a  voice  to  speak,  or  a 
vote  to  give.  Yet  Mr.  Buchanan  cannot  provoke  me 
to  abandon  one  iota  of  Democratic  principles  out  of 
revenge  or  hostility  to  his  course.  I  stand  by  the  plat- 
form of  the  Democratic  party,  and  by  its  organization. 


i858]  AT  ALTON  147 

and  support  its  nominees.  If  there  are  any  who 
choose  to  bolt,  the  fact  only  shows  that  they  are  not  as 
good  Democrats  as  I  am. 

My  friends,  there  never  was  a  time  when  it  was  as 
important  for  the  Democratic  party,  for  all  national 
men,  to  rally  and  stand  together  as  it  to-day.  We  find 
all  sectional  men  giving  up  past  differences  and  uniting 
on  the  one  question  of  slavery,  and  when  we  find  sec- 
tional men  thus  uniting,  we  should  unite  to  resist  them 
and  their  treasonable  designs.  Such  was  the  case  in 
1850,  when  Clay  left  the  quiet  and  peace  of  his  home, 
and  again  entered  upon  public  life  to  quell  agitation 
and  restore  peace  to  a  distracted  Union.  Then  we 
Democrats,  with  Cass  at  our  head,  welcomed  Henry 
Clay,  whom  the  whole  nation  regarded  as  having 
been  preserved  by  God  for  the  times.  He  became  our 
leader  in  that  great  fight,  and  we  rallied  around  him 
the  same  as  the  Whigs  rallied  around  Old  Hickory  in 
1832  to  put  down  nullification.  Thus  you  see  that 
while  Whigs  and  Democrats  fought  fearlessly  in  old 
times  about  banks,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie 
circular,  and  the  subtreasury,  all  united  as  a  band  of 
brothers  when  the  peace,  harmony,  or  integrity  of  the 
Union  was  imperiled.  It  was  so  in  1850,  when  Aboli- 
tionism had  even  so  far  divided  this  country.  North 
and  South,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the  Union, 
Whigs  and  Democrats  united  in  establishing  the  com- 
promise measures  of  that  year,  and  restoring  tran- 
quillity and  good  feeling.  These  measures  passed  on 
the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties.  They  rested  on 
the  great  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and 
each  Territory  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  them- 
selves. You  Whigs  and  we  Democrats  justified  them 
in  that  principle.  In  1854,  when  it  became  necessary 
to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
T  brought  forward  the  bill  on  the  same  principle.  In 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  you  find  it  declared  to  be  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it 
therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in 
their  own  way. 

I  stand  on  that  same  platform  in  1858  that  I  did  in 
1850,  1854,  and  1856.     The  Washington  Union,  pretend- 


148  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS         [Oct.  15 

ing  to  be  the  organ  of  the  administration,  in  the  num- 
ber of  the  5th  of  this  month,   devotes   three  columns 
and  a  half  to  establish   these  propositions:   first,   that 
Douglas  in  his  Freeport  speech  held  the  same  doctrine 
that  he  did  in  his  Nebraska  bill  in  1854;  second,  that 
in   1854  Douglas  justified  the  Nebraska  bill  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  based  upon  the  same  principle  as 
Clay's  compromise  measures  of  1850.     The  Union  thus 
proved  that  Douglas  was  the  same  in  1858  that  he  was 
in  1856,   1854,  and  1850,  and  consequently  argued  that 
he  was  never  a  Democrat.     Is  it  not  funny  that  I  was 
never  a  Democrat?     There  is  no  pretense  that  I  have 
changed   a   hair's   breadth.     The    Union  proves   by  my 
speeches  that  I  explained  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850  just  as  I  do  now,  and  that  I  explained  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854  j"st  as  I  did  in  my  Freeport 
speech,  and  yet  says  that  I  am  not  a  Democrat,  and 
cannot  be  trusted,  because  I  have  not  changed  during 
the  whole  of  that  time.     It  has  occurred  to  me  that  in 
1854  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was 
considered  a  pretty  good  Democrat.     It  has  occurred 
to  me  that  in  1856,  when  I  was  exerting  every  nerve 
and   every   energy   for  James    Buchanan,    standing  on 
the   same  platform  then  that  I  do  now,  that  I  was  a 
pretty  good  Democrat.     They  now  tell  me  that  I  am 
not  a  Democrat,  because  I  assert  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  as  well  as  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right 
to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  can  or  can- 
not exist  in  such  Territory.     Let  me  read  what  James 
Buchanan    said   on   that   point   when   he   accepted   the 
Democratic    nomination    for   the    presidency    in    1856. 
In    his    letter    of    acceptance,    he   used   the    following 
language: 

The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic 
slavery,  derived  as  it  has  been  from  the  original  and  pure 
fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 
majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  ex- 
citement. This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as 
ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with 
them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory, 
like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether 
slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits. 

Dr.  Hope  will  there  find  my  answer  to  the  question 
he  propounded  to  me  before  I  commenced  speaking. 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  149 

Of  course  no  man  will  consider  it  an  answer,  who  is 
outside  of  the  Democratic  organization,  bolts  Demo- 
cratic nominations,  and  indirectly  aids  to  put  Aboli- 
tionists into  power  over  Democrats.  But  whether  Dr. 
Hope  considers  it  an  answer  or  not,  every  fair-minded 
man  will  see  that  James  Buchanan  has  answered  the 
question,  and  has  asserted  that  the  people  of  a  Ter- 
ritory, like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  I  answer  specifically,  if  you  want  a  further 
answer,  and  say  that  while  under  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  as  recorded  in  the  opinion  of  Chief 
Justice  Taney,  slaves  are  property  like  all  other  prop- 
erty, and  can  be  carried  into  any  Territory  of  the 
United  States  the  same  as  any  other  description  of 
property,  yet  when  you  get  them  there  they  are  subject 
to  the  local  law  of  the  Territory  just  like  all  other 
property.  You  will  find  in  a  recent  speech  delivered 
by  that  able  and  eloquent  statesman,  Hon.  Jefferson 
Davis,  at  Bangor,  Maine,  that  he  took  the  same  view 
of  this  subject  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  spech.  He 
there  said: 

If  the  inhabitants  of  any  Territory  should  refuse  to  enact 
such  laws  and  police  regulations  as  would  give  security 
to  their  property  or  to  his,  it  would  be  rendered  more  or 
less  valueless  in  proportion  to  the  difficulties  of  holding 
it  withotit  such  protection.  In  the  case  of  property  in 
the  labor  of  man,  or  what  is  usually  called  slave  property, 
the  insecurity  would  be  so  great  that  the  owner  could  not 
ordinarily  retain  it.  Therefore,  though  the  right  would 
remain,  the  remedy  being  withheld,  it  would  follow  that 
the  owner  would  be  practically  debarred,  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  from  taking  slave  property  into  a 
Territory  where  the  sense  of  the  inhabitants  was  opposed 
to  its  introduction.  So  much  for  the  oft-repeated  fallacy  of 
forcing  slavery  upon  any  community. 

You  will  also  find  that  the  distinguished  Speaker  of 
the  present  House  of  Representatives,  Hon.  James  L. 
Orr,  construed  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  this 
same  way  in  1856,  and  also  that  great  intellect  of  the 
South,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  put  the  same  construc- 
tion upon  it  in  Congress  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport 
speech.  The  whole  South  is  rallying  to  the  support  of 
the  doctrine  that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want 
slavery  they  have  a  right  to  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not 


I50  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

want  it  that  no  power  on  earth  can  force  it  upon  them. 
I  hold  that  there  is  no  principle  on  earth  more  sacred 
to  all  the  friends  of  freedom  than  that  which  says  that 
no  institution,  no  law,  no  constitution,  should  be 
forced  on  an  unwilling  people  contrary  to  their  wishes; 
and  I  assert  that  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  con- 
tains that  principle.  It  is  the  great  principle  contained 
in  that  bill.  It  is  the  principle  on  which  James  Buch- 
anan was  made  President.  Without  that  principle  he 
never  would  have  been  made  President  of  the  United 
States.  I  will  never  violate  or  abandon  that  doctrine, 
if  I  have  to  stand  alone.  I  have  resisted  the  blandish- 
ments and  threats  of  power  on  the  one  side,  and 
seduction  on  the  other,  and  have  stood  immovably 
for  that  principle,  fighting  for  it  when  assailed  by 
Northern  mobs,  or  threatened  by  Southern  hostility.  I 
have  defended  it  against  the  North  and  the  South, 
and  I  will  defend  it  against  whoever  assails  it,  and  I 
will  follow  it  wherever  its  logical  conclusions  lead  me. 
I  say  to  you  that  there  is  but  one  hope,  one  safety  for 
this  country,  and  that  is  to  stand  immovably  by  that 
principle  which  declares  the  right  of  each  State  and 
each  Territory  to  decide  these  questions  for  themselves. 
This  government  was  founded  on  that  principle,  and 
must  be  administered  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it 
was  founded. 

But  the  Abolition  party  really  think  that  under  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  the  negro  is  equal  to  the 
white  man,  and  that  negro  equality  is  an  inalienable 
right  conferred  by  the  Almighty,  and  hence  that  all 
human  laws  in  violation  of  it  are  null  and  void.  With 
such  men  it  is  no  use  for  me  to  argue.  I  hold  that  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no 
reference  to  negroes  at  all  when  they  declared  all  men 
to  be  created  equal.  They  did  not  mean  negroes,  nor 
the  savage  Indians,  nor  the  Feejee  Islanders,  nor  any 
other  barbarous  race.  They  were  speaking  of  white 
men.  They  alluded  to  men  of  European  birth  and 
European  descent — to  white  men,  and  to  none  others, 
when  they  declared  that  doctrine.  I  hold  that  this 
government  was  established  on  the  white  basis.  It 
was  established  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white 
men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  admin- 
istered by  white  men,  and  none  others.  But  it  does 
not   follow,   by   any   means,    that   merely   because   the 


I 


j8s8]  at  ALTON"  151 

negro  is  not  a  citizen,  and  merely  because  he  is  not 
our  equal,  that  therefore  he  should  be  a  slave.  On  the 
contrary,  it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the 
negro  race,  and  to  all  other  dependent  races,  all  the 
rights,  all  the  privileges,  and  all  the  immunities  which 
they  can  exercise  consistently  with  the  safety  of  society. 
Humanity  requires  that  we  should  give  them  all  those 
privileges;  Christianity  commands  that  we  should  ex- 
tend those  privileges  to  them.  The  question  then 
arises,  What  are  those  privileges,  and  what  is  the 
nature  and  extent  of  them?  .My  answer  is  that  that  is 
a  question  which  each  State  must  answer  for  itself. 
We  in  Illinois  have  decided  it  for  ourselves.  We 
tried  slavery,  kept  it  up  for  twelve  years,  and  finding 
that  it  was  not  profitable,  we  abolished  it  for  that 
reason,  and  became  a  free  State.  We  adopted  in  its 
stead  the  policy  that  a  negro  in  this  State  shall  not 
be  a  slave  and  shall  not  be  a  citizen.  We  have  a  right 
to  adopt  that  policy.  For  my  part,  I  think  it  is  a  wise 
and  sound  policy  for  us.  You  in  Missouri  must  judge 
for  yourselves  whether  it  is  a  wise  policy  for  you.  If 
you  choose  to  follow  our  example,  very  good;  if  you 
reject  it,  still  well;  it  is  your  business,  not  ours.  So 
with  Kentucky.  Let  Kentucky  adopt  a  policy  to  suit 
herself.  If  Vv-e  do  not  like  it,  we  will  keep  away  from 
it;  and  if  she  does  not  like  ours,  let  her  stay  at  home, 
mind  her  own  business,  and  let  us  alone.  If  the  people 
of  all  the  States  will  act  on  that  great  principle,  and 
each  State  mind  its  own  business,  attend  to  its  own 
affairs,  take  care  of  its  own  negroes,  and  not  meddle 
with  its  neighbors,  then  there  will  be  peace  between 
the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  West, 
throughout  the  whole  Union.  Why  can  we  not  thus 
have  peace?  Why  should  we  thus  allow  a  sectional 
party  to  agitate  this  country,  to  array  the  North 
against  the  South,  and  convert  us  into  enemies  instead 
of  friends,  merely  that  a  few  ambitious  men  may  ride 
into  power  on  a  sectional  hobby?  How  long  is  it  since 
these  ambitious  Northern  men  wished  for  a  sectional 
organization?  Did  any  one  of  them  dream  of  a  sec- 
tional party  as  long  as  the  North  was  the  weaker 
section  and  the  South  the  stronger?  Then  all  were 
opposed  to  sectional  parties.  But  the  moment  the 
North  obtained  the  majority  in  the  House  and  Senate 
by    the    admission    of    California,    and    could    elect    a 


152  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

President  without  the  aid  of  Southern  votes,  that  mo- 
ment ambitious  Northern  men  formed  a  scheme  to 
excite  the  North  against  the  South,  and  make  the 
people  be  governed  in  their  votes  by  geographical 
hnes,  thinking  that  the  North,  being  the  stronger 
section,  would  outvote  the  South,  and  consequently 
they,  the  leaders,  would  ride  into  office  on  a  sectional 
hobby.  I  am  told  that  my  hour  is  out.  It  was  very 
short. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply. 

Ladies   and   Gentlemen:   I   have   been   some- 
what, in  my  own  mind,  complimented  by  a  large 
portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech — I  mean  that 
portion  which  he  devotes  to  the  controversy  be- 
tween  himself   and   the   present   administration. 
This  is  the  seventh  time  Judge  Douglas  and  my- 
self have  met  in  these  joint  discussions,  and  he 
has  been  gradually  improving  in  regard  to  his 
war  with  the  administration.     At  Quincy,   day 
before   yesterday,   he  was   a   little   more   severe 
upon  the  administration  than  I  had  heard  him 
upon  any  occasion,  and  I  took  pains  to  compli- 
ment him  for  it.     I  then  told  him  to  ''give  it  to 
them  with  all  the  power  he  had";  and  as  some 
of  them  were  present,  I  told  them  I  would  be 
very  much  obliged  if  they  would  give  it  to  him 
in  about  the  same  way.   I  take  it  that  he  has  now 
vastly  improved  upon  the  attack  he  made  then 
upon  the  administration.    I  flatter  myself  he  has 
really  taken  my  advice  on  this  subject.     All  I 
can  say  now  is  to  re-commend  to  him  and  to 
them  what  I  then  commended — to  prosecute  the 
war  against  one  another  in  the  most  vigorous 
manner.     I  say  to  them  again,  ''Go  it,  husband ; 
go  it,  bear!" 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  will  mention  before 


:i858]  AT  ALTON  153 

I  leave  this  branch  of  the  discussion — although 
\  do  not  consider  it  much  of  my  business,  any- 
way. I  refer  to  that  part  of  the  judge's  remarks 
where  he  undertakes  to  involve  Mr.  Buchanan 
in  an  inconsistency.  He  reads  something  from 
Mr.  Buchanan,  from  which  he  undertakes  to  in- 
volve him  in  an  inconsistency ;  and  he  gets  some- 
thing of  a  cheer  for  having  done  so.  I  would 
only  remind  the  judge  that  while  he  is  very  val- 
iantly fighting  for  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  re- 
peal of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  it  has  been 
but  a  little  while  since  he  was  the  valiant  advo- 
cate of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  I  want  to 
know  if  Buchanan  has  not  as  much  right  to  be 
inconsistent  as  Douglas  has?  Has  Douglas  the 
exclusive  right  in  this  country  of  being  on  all 
sides  of  all  questions?  Is  nobody  allowed  that 
high  privilege  but  himself?  Is  he  to  have  an 
entire  monopoly  on  that  subject? 

So  far  as  Judge  Douglas  addressed  his  speech 
to  me,  or  so  far  as  it  was  about  me,  it  is  my  busi- 
ness to  pay  some  attention  to  it.  I  have  heard 
the  judge  state  two  or  three  times  what  he  has 
stated  to-day — that  in  a  speech  which  I  made 
at  Springfield,  111.,  I  had  in  a  very  especial  man- 
ner complained  that  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case  had  decided  that  a  negro  could 
never  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  have 
omitted,  by  some  accident,  heretofore  to  analyze 
this  statement,  and  it  is  required  of  me  to  notice 
it  now.  In  point  of  fact  it  is  untrue.  I  never 
have  complained  especially  of  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision because  it  held  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a 
citizen,  and  the  judge  is  always  wrong  when  he 
says  I  ever  did  so  complain  of  it.  I  have  the 
speech  here,  and  I  will  thank  him  or  any  of  his 


154  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS     .    [Oct.  15 

friends  to  show  where  I  said  that  a  negro  should 
be  a  citizen,  and  complained  especially  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  because  he  declared  he  could 
not  be  one.  I  have  done  no  such  thing,  and 
Judge  Douglas  so  persistently  insisting  that  I 
have  done  so  has  strongly  impressed  me  with  the 
belief  of  a  predetermination  on  his  part  to  mis- 
represent me.  He  could  not  get  his  foundation 
for  insisting  that  I  was  in  favor  of  this  negro 
equality  anywhere  else  as  well  as  he  could  by 
assuming  that  untrue  proposition.  Let  me  tell 
this  audience  what  is  true  in  regard  to  that  mat- 
ter; and  the  means  by  which  they  may  correct 
me  if  I  do  not  tell  them  truly  is  by  a  recurrence 
to  the  speech  itself.  I  spoke  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  in  my  Springfield  speech,  and  I  was 
then  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  a  portion  of  a  system  or  scheme 
to  make  slavery  national  in  this  country.  I 
pointed  out  what  things  had  been  decided  by  the 
court.  I  mentioned  as  a  fact  that  they  had  de- 
cided that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen — that 
they  had  done  so,  as  I  supposed,  to  deprive  the 
negro,  under  all  circumstances,  of  the  remotest 
possibility  of  ever  becoming  a  citizen  and  claim- 
ing the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
under  a  certain  clause  of  the  Constitution.  I 
stated  that,  without  making  any  complaint  of  it 
at  al.l.  I  then  went  on  and  stated  the  other  points 
decided  in  the  case, — namely,  that  the  bringing 
of  a  negro  into  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  holding 
him  in  slavery  for  two  years  here,  was  a  matter 
in  regard  to  which  they  would  not  decide  whether 
it  would  make  him  free  or  not ;  that  they  decided 
the  further  point  that  taking  him  into  a  United 
States   Territory   where   slavery   was   prohibited 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  155 

by  act  of  Congress,  did  not  make  him  free,  be- 
cause that  act  of  Congress,  as  they  held,  was  un- 
constitutional. I  mentioned  these  three  things 
as  making  up  the  points  decided  in  that  case.  I 
mentioned  them  in  a  lump  taken  in  connection 
with  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  and 
the  amendment  of  Chase,  offered  at  the  time, 
declaratory  of  the  right  of  the  people  of  the 
Territories  to  exclude  slavery,  which  was  voted 
down  by  the  friends  of  the  bill.  I  mentioned  all 
these  things  together,  as  evidence  tending  to 
prove  a  combination  and  conspiracy  to  make  the 
institution  of  slavery  national.  In  that  connec- 
tion and  in  that  way  I  mentioned  the  decision  on 
the  point  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and 
in  no  other  connection. 

Out  of  this.  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his 
beautiful  fabrication — of  my  purpose  to  intro- 
duce a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  be- 
tween the  white  and  the  black  races.  His  as- 
sertion that  I  made  an  "especial  objection"  (that 
is  his  exact  language)  to  the  decision  on  this  ac- 
count, is  untrue  in  point  of  fact. 

Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as 
Henry  Clay  has  been  alluded  to,  I  desire  to  place 
myself,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Clay,  as  nearly 
right  before  this  people  as  may  be.  I  am  quite 
aware  what  the  judge's  object  is  here  by  all  these 
allusions.  He  knows  that  we  are  before  an  audi- 
ence having  strong  sympathies  southward  by  re- 
lationship, place  of  birth,  and  so  on.  He  desires 
to  place  me  in  an  extremely  Abolition  attitude. 
He  read  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  alludes 
without  reading  to-day,  to  a  portion  of  a  speech 
which  I  delivered  in  Chicago.  In  his  quotations 
from  that  speech,  as  he  has  made  them   upon 


156  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

former  occasions,  the  extracts  were  taken  in  such 
a  way  as,  I  suppose,  brings  them  within  the  defi- 
nition of  what  is  called  garbling — taking  por- 
tions of  a  speech  which,  when  taken  by  them- 
selves, do  not  present  the  entire  sense  of  the 
speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose, 
therefore,  out  of  that  same  speech,  to  show  how 
one  portion  of  it  which  he  skipped  over  (taking 
an  extract  before  and  an  extract  after)  will  give 
a  different  idea,  and  the  true  idea  I  intended  to 
convey.  It  will  take  me  some  little  time  to  read 
it,  but  I  believe  I  will  occupy  the  time  that  way. 
You  have  heard  him  frequently  allude  to  my 
controversy  with  him  in  regard  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  I  confess  that  I  have  had 
a  struggle  with  Judge  Douglas  on  that  matter, 
and  I  will  try  briefly  to  place  myself  right  in 
regard  to  it  on  this  occasion.  I  said — and  it  is 
between  the  extracts  Judge  Douglas  has  taken 
from  this  speech,  and  put  in  his  published 
speeches : 

It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions 
th'^it  make  necessities  and  impose  them  upon  us,  and  to 
the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man  he 
must  submit  to  it.  I  think  that  was  the  condition  in 
which  we  found  ourselves  when  we  established  this 
government.  We  had  slaves  among  us;  we  could  not 
get  our  Constitution  unless  we  permitted  them  to  re- 
main in  slavery;  we  could  not  secure  the  good  we  did 
secure  if  we  grasped  for  more:  and  having  by  necessity 
submitted  to  that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the 
principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let  that 
charter  remain  as  our  standard. 

Now  I  have  upon  all  occasions  declared  as 
strongly  as  Judge  Douglas  against  the  disposi- 
tion to  interfere  with  the  existing  institution  of 
slavery.     You  hear  me  read  it  from  the  same 


1858]  AT  ALTON  157 

speech  from  which  he  takes  garbled  extracts  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  upon  me  a  disposition  to 
interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  es- 
tablish a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  be- 
tween negroes  and  white  people. 

Allow  me,  while  upon  this  subject,  briefly  to 
present  one  other  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine, 
made  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  Springfield,  in 
discussing  this  very  same  question,  soon  after 
Judge  Douglas  took  his  ground  that  negroes 
were  not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence : 

I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  in- 
tended to  include  all  men,  but  they  did  not  intend  to 
declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects.  They  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  all  men  were  equal  in  color,  size,  intel- 
lect, moral  development,  or  social  capacity.  They  de- 
fined with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what  respects  they 
did  consider  all  men  created  equal — equal  in  certain  in- 
alienable rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness.  This  they  said,  and  this  they 
meant.  They  did  not  mean  to  assert  the  obvious  un- 
truth, that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that  equality, 
nor  yet  that  they  were  about,  to  confer  it  immediately 
upon  them.  In  fact,  they  had  no  power  to  confer  such 
a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare  the  right,  so 
that  the  enforcement  of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as  cir- 
cumstances should  permit. 

They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free 
society  which  should  be  familiar  to  all  and  revered  by 
all — constantly  looked  to,  constantly  labored  for,  and 
even,  though  never  perfectly  attained,  constantly  ap- 
proximated; and  thereby  constantly  spreading  and 
deepening  its  influence  and  augmenting  the  happiness 
and  value  of  life  to  all  people,  of  all  colors,  everywhere. 

There,  again,  are  the  sentiments  I  have  ex- 
pressed in  regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence upon  a  former  occasion — sentiments 
which  have  been  put  in  print  and  read  wherever 


158  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

anybody  cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an  indi- 
vidual as  myself  chose  to  say  in  regard  to  it. 

At  Galesburg,  the  other  day,  I  said,  in  answer 
to  Judge  Douglas,  that  i;hree  years  ago  there 
never  had  been  a  man,  so  far  as  I  knew  or  be- 
lieved, in  the  whole  world,  who  had  said  that 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  include 
negroes  in  the  term  "all  men."  I  reassert  it  to- 
day. I  assert  that  Judge  Douglas  and  all  his 
friends  may  search  the  whole  records  of  the 
country,  and  it  will  be  a  matter  of  great  aston- 
ishment to  me  if  they  shall  be  able  to  find  that 
one  human  being  three  years  ago  had  ever  ut- 
tered the  astounding  sentiment  that  the  term  *'all 
men"  in  the  Declaration  did  not  include  the  ne- 
gro. Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood.  I  know 
that  more  than  three  years  ago  there  were  men 
who,  finding  this  assertion  constantly  in  the  way 
of  their  schemes  to  bring  about  the  ascendancy 
and  perpetuation  of  slavery,  denied  the  truth  of 
it.  I  know  that  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the  poli- 
ticians of  his  school  denied  the  truth  of  the  Dec- 
laration. I  know  that  it  ran  along  in  the  mouth 
of  some  Southern  men  for  a  period  of  years, 
ending  at  last  in  that  shameful  though  rather 
forcible  declaration  of  Pettit  of  Indiana,  upon  the 
floor  of  the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  was  in  that  respect  "a 
self-evident  lie,"  rather  than  a  self-evident  truth. 
But  I  say,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  this 
hawking  at  the  Declaration  without  directly  at- 
tacking it,  that  three  years  ago  there  never  had 
lived  a  man  who  had  ventured  to  assail  it  in  the 
sneaking  way  of  pretending  to  believe  it  and 
then  asserting  it  did  not  include  the  negro.  ^  I 
believe  the  first  man  who  ever  said  it  was  Chief 


1858]  AT  ALTON  159 

Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the 
next  to  him  was  our  friend,  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 
And  now  it  has  become  the  catchword  of  the  en- 
tire party.  I  would  like  to  call  upon  his  friends 
everywhere  to  consider  how  they  have  come  in 
so  short  a  time  to  view  this  matter  in  a  way  so 
entirely  different  from  their  former  belief;  to 
ask  whether  they  are  not  being  borne  along  by 
an  irresistible  current — whither,  they  know  not. 
In  answer  to  my  proposition  at  Galesburg  last 
week,  I  see  that  some  man  in  Chicago  has  got 
up  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Chicago  Times,  to 
show,  as  he  professes,  that  somebody  had  said  so 
before ;  and  he  signs  himself  "An  Old-Line 
Whig,"  if  I  remember  correctly.  In  the  first 
place  I  would  say  he  was  not  an  old-line  Whig. 
I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  old-line  Whigs. 
I  was  with  the  old-line  Whigs  from  the  origin 
to  the  end  of  that  party;  I  became  pretty  well 
acquainted  with  them,  and  I  know  they  always 
had  some  sense,  whatever  else  you  could  ascribe 
to  them.  I  know  there  never  was  one  who  had 
not  more  sense  than  to  try  to  show  by  the  evi- 
dence he  produces  that  some  man  had,  prior  to 
the  time  I  named,  said  the  negroes  were  not  in- 
cluded in  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  What  is  the  evidence  he  pro- 
duces? I  will  bring  forward  his  evidence,  and 
let  you  see  what  he  offers  by  way  of  showing 
that  somebody  more  than  three  years  ago  had 
said  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Declara- 
tion. He  brings  forward  part  of  a  speech  from 
Henry  Clay — the  part  of  the  speech  of  Henry 
Clay  which  I  used  to  bring  forward  to  prove 
precisely  the  contrary.  I  guess  we  are  sur- 
rounded to  some  extent  to-day  by  the  old  friends 


i6o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

of  Mr.  Clay,  and  they  will  be  glad  to  hear  any- 
thing from  that  authority.  While  he  was  in  In- 
diana a  man  presented  a  petition  to  liberate  his 
negroes,  and  he  (]\Ir.  Clay)  made  a  speech  in 
answer  to  it,  which  I  suppose  he  carefully  wrote 
himself  and  caused  to  be  published.  I  have  be- 
fore me  an  extract  from  that  speech  which  con- 
stitutes the  evidence  this  pretended  "Old-Line 
Whig"  at  Chicago  brought  forward  to  show  that 
Mr.  Clay  didn't  suppose  the  negro  was  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Hear  what 
Mr.  Clay  said : 

And  what  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in 
Indiana,  to  liberate  the  slaves  under  my  care  in 
Kentucky?  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  an- 
nouncing to  the  world  the  independence  of  the  thir- 
teen American  colonies,  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 
Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  that  declaration;  and  it  is  desirable,  in  the 
original  construction  of  society,  and  in  organized 
societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental 
principle.  But  then  I  apprehend  that  in  no  society 
that  ever  did  exist,  or  ever  shall  be  formed,  was  or  can 
the  equality  asserted  among  the  members  of  the 
human  race  be  practically  enforced  and  carried  out. 
There  are  portions,  large  portions, — women,  minors, 
insane,  culprits,  transient  sojourners, — that  will  always 
probably  remain  subject  to  the  government  of  another 
portion  of  the  community. 

That  declaration,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  its 
import,  was  made  by  the  delegations  of  the  thirteen 
States.  In  most  of  them  slavery  existed,  and  had  long 
existed,  and  was  established  by  law.  It  was  introduced 
and  forced  upon  the  colonies  by  the  paramount  law  of 
England.  Do  you  believe  that  in  making  that  dec- 
laration, the  States  that  concurred  in  it  intended  that 
it  should  be  tortured  into  a  virtual  emancipation  of  all 
the  slaves  within  their  respective  limits?  Would 
Virginia  and  other  Southern  States  have  ever  united 
in  a  declaration  which  was  to  be  interpreted  into  an 
abolition   of   slavery   among   them?     Did   any   one   of 


1858]  AT  ALTON  161 

the  thirteen  colonies  entertain  such  a  design  or  ex- 
pectation? To  impute  such  a  secret  and  unavowed  pur- 
pose would  be  to  charge  a  political  fraud  upon  the 
noblest  band  of  patriots  that  ever  assembled  in  coun- 
cil— a  fraud  upon  the  confederacy  of  the  Revolution — 
a  fraud  upon  the  union  of  those  States  whose  constitu- 
tion not  only  recognized  the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  but 
permitted  the  importation  of  slaves  from  Africa'  until 
the  year  1808. 

This  is  the  entire  quotation  brought  forward 
to  prove  that  somebody  previous  to  three  years 
ago  had  said  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the 
term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration.  How  does 
it  do  so  ?  In  what  way  has  it  a  tendency  to  prove 
that?  ^Ir.  Clay  says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract 
principle  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  but  that 
we  cannot  practically  apply  it  in  all  cases.  He 
illustrates  this  by  bringing  forward  the  cases  of 
females,  minors,  and  insane  persons,  with  whom 
it  cannot  be  enforced ;  but  he  says  that  it  is  true 
as  an  abstract  principle  in  the  organization  of 
society  as  well  as  in  organized  society,  and  it 
should  be  kept  in  view  as  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple. Let  me  read  a  few  words  more  before  I 
add  some  comments  of  my  own.  ^Ir.  Clay  says 
a  little  further  on : 

I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to 
the  institution  of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great 
evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the 
parent  government,  and  from  our  ancestors.  I  wish 
every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in  the  country  of 
his  ancestors.  But  here  they  are.  and  the  question  is, 
how  can  they  be  best  dealt  with?  If  a  state  of  nature 
existed,  and  we  were  about  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than 
I  should  be.  to  incorporating  the  institution  of  slavery 
among  its  elements. 

Now,  here  in  this  same  book — in  this  same 


t62  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

speech — in  this  same  extract  brought  forward  to 
prove  that  Mr.  Clay  held  that  the  negro  was  not 
included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence — 
we  find  no  such  statement  on  his  part,  but  in- 
stead the  declaration  that  it  is  a  great  funda- 
mental truth,  which  should  be  constantly  kept  in 
view  in  the  organization  of  society  and  in  socie- 
ties already  organized.  But  if  I  say  a  word  about 
it;  if  I  attempt,  as  Mr.  Clay  said  all  good  men 
ought  to  do,  to  keep  it  in  view ;  if,  in  this  "or- 
ganized society,"  I  ask  to  have  the  public  eye 
turned  upon  it ;  if  I  ask,  in  relation  to  the  organ- 
ization of  new  Territories,  that  the  public  eye 
should  be  turned  upon  it, — forthwith  I  am  vilified 
as. you  hear  me  to-day.  What  have  I  done  that 
I  have  not  the  license  of  Henry  Clay's  illustrious 
example  here  in  doing?  Have  I  done  aught  that 
I  have  not  his  authority  for,  while  maintaining 
that  in  organizing  new  Territories  and  societies, 
this  fundamental  principle  should  be  regarded, 
and  in  organized  society  holding  it  up  to  the  pub- 
lic view  and  recognizing  what  he  recognized  as 
the  great  principle  of  free  government? 

^  And  when  this  new  principle — this  new  propo- 
sition that  no  human  being  ever  thought  of  three 
years  ago — is  brought  forward,  I  combat  it  as 
having  an  evil  tendency,  if  not  an  evil  design. 
I  combat  it  as  having  a  tendency  to  dehumanize 
the  negro — to  take  away  from  him  the  right  of 
ever,  striving  to  be  a  man.  I  combat  it  as  being 
one  of  the  thousand  things  constantly  done  in 
these  days  to  prepare  the  public  mind  to  make 
property,  and  nothing  but  property,  of  the  negro 
in  all  the  States  in  this  Union. 

But  there  is  a  point  that  I  wish,  before  leaving 
tWs  part  of  the  discussion,  to  ask  attention  to. 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  163 

I  have  read,  and  I  repeat,  the  words  of  Henry 
Clay: 

I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to 
the  institution  of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great 
evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from 
the  parent  government,  and  from  our  ancestors.  I 
wish  every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in  the 
country  of  his  ancestors.  But  here  they  are,  and  the 
question  is.  how  can  they  best  be  dealt  with?  If  a 
state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were  about  to  lay  the 
foundations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly 
opposed  than  I  should  be,  to  incorporating  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  among  its  elements. 


The  principle  upon  which  I  have  insisted  in 
this  canvass,  is  in  relation  to  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  new  societies.  I  have  never  sought  to 
apply  these  principles  to  the  old  States  for  the 
purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  those  States. 
It  is  nothing  but  a  miserable  perversion  of  what 
I  have  said,  to  assume  that  I  have  declared  Mis- 
souri, or  any  other  slave  State,  shall  emancipate 
her  slaves.  I  have  proposed  no  such  thing.  But 
when  Mr.  Clay  says  that  in  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  societies  in  our  Territories  where  it  does 
not  exist,  he  would  be  opposed  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  slavery  as  an  element,  I  insist  that  we 
have  his  warrant — his  license  for  insisting  upon 
the  exclusion  of  that  element  which  he  declared 
in  such  strong  and  emphatic  language  was  most 
hateful  to  him. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again  referred  to  a  Spring- 
field speech  in  which  I  said,  ''A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  The  judge  has  so 
often  made  the  entire  quotation  from  that  speech 
that  I  can  make  it  from  memory.  I  used  this 
language : 


i64  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was 
initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the 
operation  of  this  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion 
it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  "A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand."  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure 
permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect 
the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 
Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it 
shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States— old  as  well 
as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 

That  extract,  and  the  sentiments  expressed  in 
it,  have  been  extremely  offensive  to  Judge  Doug- 
las. He  has  warred  upon  them  as  Satan  wars 
upon  the  Bible.  His  perversions  upon  it  are  end- 
less.   Here  now  are  my  views  upon  it  in  brief. 

I  said  we  were  now  far  into  the  fifth  year 
since  a  policy  was  initiated  with  the  avowed  ob- 
ject and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to 
the  slavery  agitation.  Is  it  not  so  ?  When  that 
Nebraska  bill  was  brought  forward  four  years 
ago  last  January,  was  it  not  for  the  "avowed  ob- 
ject" of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation? 
We  were  to  have  no  more  agitation  in  Congress ; 
it  was  all  to  be  banished  to  the  Territories.  By 
the  way,  I  will  remark  here  that,  as  Judge  Doug- 
las is  very  fond  of  complimenting  Mr.  Critten- 
den in  these  days,  Mr.  Crittenden  has  said  there 
was  a  falsehood  in  that  whole  business,  for  there 
was  no  slavery  agitation  at  that  time  to  allay. 
We  were  for  a  little  while  quiet  on  the  trouble- 
some  thing,   and   that  very   allaying-plaster   of 


1858]  AT  ALTON  165 

Judge  Douglas's  stirred  it  up  again.  But  was  it 
not  undertaken  or  initiated  with  the  ''confident 
promise"  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agita- 
tion? Surely  it  was.  In  every  speech  you  heard 
Judge  Douglas  make,  until  he  got  into  this  ''im- 
broglio," as  they  call  it,  with  the  administration 
about  the  Lecompton  constitution,  every  speech 
on  that  Nebraska  bill  was  full  of  his  felicitations 
that  we  were  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agi- 
tation. The  last  tip  of  the  last  joint  of  the  old 
serpent's  tail  was  just  drawing  out  of  view.  But 
has  it  proved  so  ?  I  have  asserted  that  under  that 
policy  that  agitation  "has  not  only  not  ceased, 
but  has  constantly  augmented."  When  was  there 
ever  a  greater  agitation  in  Congress  than  last 
winter?  When  was  it  as  great  in  the  country  as 
to-day  ? 

There  was  a  collateral  object  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  that  Nebraska  policy  which  was  to  clothe 
the  people  of  the  Territories  with  a  superior  de- 
gree of  self-government,  beyond  what  they  had 
ever  had  before.  The  first  object  and  the  main 
one  of  conferring  upon  the  people  a  higher  de- 
gree of  "self-government,"  is  a  question  of  fact 
to  be  determined  by  you  in  ansv/er  to  a  single 
question.  Have  you  ever  heard  or  known  of  a 
people  anywhere  on  earth  who  had  as  little  to  do 
as,  in  the  first  instance  of  its  use,  the  people  of 
Kansas  had  with  this  same  right  of  "self-gov- 
ernment"? In  its  main  policy  and  in  its  collat- 
eral object,  it  has  been  nothing  but  a  living, 
creeping  lie  from  the  time  of  its  introduction  till 
to-day. 

I  have  intimated  that  I  thought  the  agitation 
would  not  cease  until  a  crisis  should  have  been 
reached  and  passed.    I  have  stated  in  what  way 


166  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

I  thought  it  would  be  reached  and  passed.  I 
have  said  that  it  might  go  one  way  or  the  other. 
We  might,  by  arresting  the  further  spread  of  it, 
and  placing  it  where  the  fathers  originally  placed 
it,  put  it  where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in 
the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex- 
tinction. Thus  the  agitation  may  cease.  It  may 
be  pushed  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat,  my 
wish  is  that  the  further  spread  of  it  may  be  ar- 
rested, and  that  it  may  be  placed  where  the  pub- 
lic mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  have  expressed 
that  as  my  wish.  I  entertain  the  opinion,  upon 
evidence  sufficient  to  my  mind,  that  the  fathers 
of  this  government  placed  that  institution  where 
the  public  mind  did  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Let  me  ask 
why  they  made  provision  that  the  source  of  slav- 
ery— the  African  slave-trade — should  be  cut  off 
at  the  end  of  twenty  years  ?  Why  did  they  make 
provision  that  in  all  the  new  territory  we  owned 
at  that  time,  slavery  should  be  forever  inhibited? 
Why  stop  its  spread  in  one  direction  and  cut  off 
its  source  in  another,  if  they  did  not  look^to  its 
being  placed  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion? 

Again,  the  institution  of  slavery  is  only  men- 
tioned in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
two  or  three  times,  and  in  neither  of  these  cases 
does  the  word  "slavery"  or  "negro  race"  occur; 
but  covert  language  is  used  each  time,  and  for  a 
purpose  full  of  significance.  What  is  the  lan- 
guage in  regard  to  the  prohibition  of  the  African 
slave-trade?     It  runs  in  about  this  way:  "The 


1,858]  AT  ALTON  167. 

migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  1808." 

The  next  allusion  in  the  Constitution  to  the 
question  of  slavery  and  the  black  race,  is  on  the 
subject  of  the  basis  of  representation,  and  there 
the  language  used  is :  ''Representatives  and  di- 
rect taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  sev- 
eral States  which  may  be  included  within  this 
Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers, 
which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 
number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound 
to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed,  three  fifths  of  all  other  per- 
sons." 

It  says  "persons,"  not  slaves,  not  negroes ;  but 
this  "three  fifths"  can  be  applied  to  no  other 
class  among  us  than  the  negroes. 

Lastly,  in  the  provision  for  the  reclamation 
of  fugitive  slaves,  it  is  said :  "No  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  conse- 
quence of  any  law  or  regulation  therein  be  dis- 
charged from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be 
delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due."  There,  again, 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  word  "negro,"  or  of 
slavery.  In  all  three  of  these  places,  being  the 
only  allusion  to  slavery  in  the  instrument,  covert 
language  is  used.  Language  is  used  not  sug- 
gesting that  slavery  existed  or  that  the  black 
race  were  among  us.  And  I  understand  the  con- 
temporaneous history  of  those  times  to  be  that 
covert  language  was  used  with  a  purpose,  and 
that  purpose  was  that  in  our, Constitution,  which. 


i68  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

it  was  hoped,  and  is  still  hoped,  will  endure  for- 
ever,— when  it  should  be  read  by  intelligent  and 
patriotic  men,  after  the  institution  of  slavery  had 
passed  from  among  us, — there  should  be  nothing 
on  the  face  of  the  great  charter  of  liberty  sug- 
gesting that  such  a  thing  as  negro  slavery  had 
ever  existed  among  us.  This  is  part  of  the  evi- 
dence that  the  fathers  of  the  government  ex- 
pected and  intended  the  institution  of  slavery  to 
come  to  an  end.  They  expected  and  intended 
that  it  should  be  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion. And  when  I  say  that  I  desire  to  see  the 
further  spread  of  it  arrested,  I  only  say  I  desire 
to  see  that  done  which  the  fathers  have  first 
done.  When  I  say  I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where 
the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  say 
I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  they  placed  it.  It 
is  not  true  that  our  fathers,  as  Judge  Douglas 
assumes,  made  this  government  part  slave  and 
part  free.  Understand  the  sense  in  which  he 
puts  it.  He  assumes  that  slavery  is  a  rightful 
thing  within  itself — was  introduced  by  the  fram- 
ers  of  the  Constitution.  The  exact  truth  is  that 
they  found  the  institution  existing  among  us,  and 
they  left  it  as  they  found  it.  But  in  making  the 
government  they  left  this  institution  with  many 
clear  marks  of  disapprobation  upon  it.  They 
found  slavery  among  them,  and  they  left  it 
among  them  because  of  the  difficulty — the  abso- 
lute impossibility — of  its  immediate  removal. 
And  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  we  can- 
not let  it  remain  part  slave  and  part  free,  as  the 
fathers  of  the  government  made  it,  he  asks  a 
question  based  upon  an  assumption  which  is  it- 
self a  falsehood;  and  I  turn  upon  him  and  ask 


1858]  AT  ALTON  169 

him  the  question,  when  the  policy  that  the  fathers 
of  the  government  had  adopted  in  relation  to 
this  element  among  us  was  the  best  policy  in  the 
world, — the  only  wise  policy,  the  only  policy  that 
we  can  ever  safely  continue  upon,  that  will  ever 
give  us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  element 
masters  us  all  and  becomes  a  national  institution, 
— I  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him  why  he  could 
not  leave  it  alone.  I  turn  and  ask  him  why  he 
was  driven  to  the  necessity  of  introducing  a  new 
policy  in  regard  to  it.  He  has  himself  said  he 
introduced  a  new  policy.  He  said  so  in  his 
speech  on  the  226.  of  March  of  the  present  year, 
1858.  I  ask  him  why  he  could  not  let  it  remain 
where  our  fathers  placed  it.  I  ask,  too,  of  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends,  why  we  shall  not  again 
place  this  institution  upon  the  basis  on  which  the 
fathers  left  it  ?  I  ask  you,  when  he  infers  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  setting  the  free  and  the  slave 
States  at  war,  when  the  institution  was  placed  in 
that  attitude  by  those  who  made  the  Constitu- 
tion, did  they  make  any  war?  If  we  had  no  war 
out  of  it  when  thus  placed,  wherein  is  the  ground 
of  belief  that  we  shall  have  war  out  of  it  if  we 
return  to  that  policy?  Have  we  had  any  peace 
upon  this  matter  springing  from  any  other  basis  ? 
I  maintain  that  we  have  not.  I  have  proposed 
nothing  more  than  a  return  to  the  pohcy  of  the 
fathers. 

I  confess,  when  I  propose  a  certain  measure 
of  policy,  it  is  not  enough  for  me  that  I  do  not 
intend  anything  evil  in  the  result,  but  it  is  incum- 
bent on  me  to  show  that  it  has  not  a  tendency  to 
that  result.  I  have  met  Judge  Douglas  in  that 
point  of  view.  I  have  not  only  made  the  decla- 
ration that  I  do  not  mean  to  produce  a  conflict 


I70  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

between  the  States,  but  I  have  tried  to  show  by 
fair  reasoning,  and  I  think  I  have  shown  to  the 
minds  of  fair  men,  that  I  propose  nothing  but 
what  has  a  most  peaceful  tendency.     The  quota- 
tion that  I  happened  to  make  in  that  Springfield 
speech,  that  ''a  house  divided  against  itself  can- 
not stand,"  and  which  has  proved  so  offensive  to 
the  judge,  was  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  thing. 
He  tries  to  show  that  variety  in  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States  is  necessary 
and  indispensable.     I  do  not  dispute  it.     I  have 
no  controversy  with  Judge  Douglas  about  that. 
I  shall  very  readily  agree  with  him  that  it  would 
be  foolish  for  us-  to  insist  upon  having  a  cran- 
berry law  here,  in   Illinois,  where  we  have  no 
cranberries,  because  they  have  a  cranberry  law 
in    Indiana,    w^here    they    have    cranberries.     I 
should  insist  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  wrong 
in  us  to  deny  to  Virginia  the  right  to  enact  oyster 
laws,  where  they  have  oysters,  because  we  want 
no  such  laws  here.     I  understand,  I  hope,  quite 
as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  else,  that 
the  variety  in  the  soil  and  climate  and  face  of 
the  country,  and  consequent  variety  in  the  in- 
dustrial pursuits  and  productions  of  a  country, 
require  systems  of  laws  conforming  to  this  va- 
riety in  the  natural  features  of  the  country.     I 
understand  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  that 
if  we  here  raise  a  barrel  of  flour  more  than  we 
want,   and   the   Louisianians    raise   a   barrel   of 
sugar  more  than  they  want,  it  is  of  mutual  ad- 
vantage to  exchange.    That  produces  commerce, 
brings  us  together,  and  makes  us  better  friends. 
We  like  one  another  the  more  for  it.    And  I  un- 
derstand as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody 
else,  that  these  mutual  accommodations  are  the 


r858]  AT  ALTON  171 

cements  which  bind  together  the  different  parts 
of  this  Union;  that  instead  of  being  a  thing  to 
''divide  the  house" — figuratively  expressing  the 
Union — they  tend  to  sustain  it ;  they  are  the 
props  of  the  house  tending  always  to  hold  it  up. 
But  when  I  have  admitted  all  this,  I  ask  if 
there  is  any  parallel  between  these  things  and 
this  institution  of  slavery?  I  do  not  see  that 
there  is  any  parallel  at  all  between  them.  Con- 
sider it.  When  have  we  had  any  difficulty  or 
quarrel  amongst  ourselves  about  the  cranberry 
laws  of  Indiana,  or  the  oyster  laws  of  Virginia, 
or  the  pine-lumber  laws  of  Maine,  or  the  fact 
that  Louisiana  produces  sugar,  and  Illinois  flour  ? 
When  have  we  had  any  quarrels  over  these 
things?  When  have  we  had  perfect  peace  in  re- 
gard to  this  thing  which  I  say  is  an  element  of 
discord  in  this  Union  ?  We  have  sometimes  had 
peace,  but  when  was  it?  It  was  when  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  remained  quiet  where  it  was. 
We  have  had  difficulty  and  turmoil  whenever  it 
has  made  a  struggle  to  spread  itself  where  it 
was  not.  I  ask,  then,  if  experience  does  not 
speak  in  thunder-tones,  telling  us  that  the  policy 
which  has  given  peace  to  the  country  heretofore, 
being  returned  to,  gives  the  greatest  promise  of 
peace  again.  You  may  say,  and  Judge  Douglas 
has  intimated  the  same  thing,  that  all  this  diffi- 
culty in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  is  the 
mere  agitation  of  office-seekers  and  ambitious 
northern  politicians.  He  thinks  we  want  to  get 
"his  place,"  I  suppose.  I  agree  that  there  are 
office-seekers  amongst  us.  The  Bible  says  some- 
where that  we  are  desperately  selfish,  I  think 
we  would  have  discovered  that  fact  without  the 
Bible.    I  do  not  claim  that  I  am  any  less  so  than 


172  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

the  average  men,  but  I  do  claim  that  I  am  not 
more  selfish  than  Judge  Douglas. 

But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and  agita- 
tion we  have  in  regard  to  this  institution  of  slav- 
ery springs  from  office-seeking — from  the  mere 
ambition  of  politicians  ?  Is  that  the  truth  ?  How 
many  times  have  we  had  danger  from  this  ques- 
tion ?  Go  back  to  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. Go  back  to  the  nullification  question, 
at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  this  same  slavery 
quf  stion.  Go  back  to  the  time  of  the  annexation 
of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the  troubles  that  led  to  the 
compromise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that  every 
time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  nullifica- 
tion question,  they  sprang  from  an  endeavor  to 
spread  this  institution.  There  never  was  a  party 
in  the  history  of  this  country,  and  there  probably 
never  will  be,  of  sufficient  strength  to  disturb  the 
general  peace  of  the  country.  Parties  themselves 
may  be  divided  and  quarrel  on  minor  questions, 
yet  it  extends  not  beyond  the  parties  themselves. 
But  does  not  this  question  make  a  disturbance 
outside  of  political  circles?  Does  it  not  enter 
into  the  churches  and  rend  them  asunder? 
What  divided  the  great  Methodist  Church  into 
two  parts,  North  and  South?  What  has  raised 
this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presbyterian 
general  assembly  that  meets?  What  disturbed 
the  Unitarian  Church  in  this  very  city  two  years 
ago?  What  has  jarred  and  shaken  the  great 
American  Tract  Society  recently — not  yet  split- 
ting it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end  ?  Is  it  not 
this  same  mighty,  deep-seated  power  that  some- 
how operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and 
stirring  them  up  in  every  avenue  of  society — in 
politics,  in  religion,  in  literature,  in  morals,  in 


1858]  AT  ALTON  173 

all  the  manifold  relations  of  life?  Is  this  the 
work  of  politicians?  Is  that  irresistible  power, 
which  for  fifty  years  has  shaken  the  government 
and  agitated  the  people,  to  be  stilled  and  subdued 
by  pretending  that  it  is  an  exceedingly  simple 
thing,  and  we  ought  not  to  talk  about  it  ?  If  you 
will  get  everybody  else  to  stop  talking  about  it, 
I  assure  you  I  will  quit  before  they  have  half 
done  so.  But  where  is  the  philosophy  or  states- 
manship which  assumes  that  you  can  quiet  that 
disturbing  element  in  our  society  which  has  dis- 
turbed us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which 
has  been  the  only  serious  danger  that  has  threat- 
ened our  institutions — I  say,  where  is  the  philos- 
ophy or  the  statesmanship  based  on  the  assump- 
tion that  we  are  to  quit  talking  about  it,  and 
that  the  public  mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease  being 
agitated  by  it?  Yet  this  is  the  policy  here  in  the 
North  that  Douglas  is  advocating — that  we  are 
to  care  nothing  about  it !  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a 
false  philosophy  ?  Is  it  not  a  false  statesmanship 
that  undertakes  to  build  up  a  system  of  policy 
upon  the  basis  of  caring  nothing  about  the  very 
thing  that  everybody  does  care  the  most  about — 
a  thing  which  all  experience  has  shown  we  care 
a  very  great  deal  about? 

The  judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks  to  the  exclusive  rights  which  the 
States  have  to  decide  the  whole  thing  for  them- 
selves. I  agree  with  him  very  readily  that  the 
different  States  have  that  right.  He  is  but  fight- 
ing a  man  of  straw  when  he  assumes  that  I  am 
contending  against  the  right  of  the  States  to  do 
as  they  please  about  it.  Our  controversy  with 
him  is  in  regard  to  the  new  Territories.  We 
agree  that  when  the  States  come  in  as  States 


174  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

they  have  the  right  and  the  power  to  do  as  they 
please.  We  have  no  power  as  citizens  of  the 
free  States,  or  in  our  federal  capacity  as  members 
of  the  Federal  Union  through  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, to  disturb  slavery  in  the  States  where 
it  exists.  We  profess  constantly  that  we  ha^ 
no  more  inclination  than  belief  in  the  power  of 
the  government  to  disturb  it;  yet  we  are  driven 
constantly  to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assump- 
tion that  we  are  warring  upon  the  rights  of  the 
States.  What  I  insist  upon  is,  that  the  new  Ter- 
ritories shall  be  kept  free  from  it  while  in  the 
territorial  condition.  Judge  Douglas  assumes 
that  we  have  no  interest  in  them — that  we  have 
no  right  whatever  to  interfere.  I  think  we  have 
some  interest.  I  think  that  as  white  men  we 
have.  Do  we  not  wish  for  an  outlet  for  our 
surplus  population,  if  I  may  so  express  myself? 
Do  we  not  feel  an  interest  in  getting  to  that  out- 
let with  such  institutions  as  we  would  like  to 
have  prevail  there?  If  you  go  to  the  Territory 
opposed  to  slavery,  and  another  man  comes  upon 
the  same  ground  with  his  slave,  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  things  are  equal,  it  turns  out 
that  he  has  the  equal  right  all  his  way,  and  you 
have  no  part  of  it  your  way.  If  he  goes  in  and 
makes  it  a  slave  Territory,  and  by  consequence 
a  slave  State,  is  it  not  time  that  those  who  desire 
to  have  it  a  free  State  were  on  equal  ground? 
Let  me  suggest  it  in  a  different  way.  How  many 
Democrats  are  there  about  here  ["A  thousand"^ 
who  have  left  slave  States  and  come  into  the  free 
State  of  Illinois  to  get  rid  of  the  institution  of 
slavery?  [Another  voice:  ''A  thousand  and 
one."]  I  reckon  there  are  a  thousand  and  one. 
I  will  ask  you,  if  the  policy  you  are  now  advocat- 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON  175 

ing  had  prevailed  when  this  country  was  in  a 
territorial  condition,  where  would  you  have  gone 
to  get  rid  of  it?  Where  would  you  have  found 
your  free  State  or  Territory  to  go  to?  And 
when  hereafter,  for  any  cause,  the  people  in  this 
place  shall  desire  to  find  new  homes,  if  they  wish 
to  be  rid  of  the  institution,  where  will  they  find 
the  place  to  go  to? 

Now,  irrespective  of  the  moral  aspect  of  this 
question  as  to  whether  there  is  a  right  or  wrong 
in  enslaving  a  negro,  I  am  still  in  favor  of  our 
new  Territories  being  in  such  a  condition  that 
white  men  may  find  a  home — may  find  some  spot 
where  they  can  better  their  condition — where 
they  can  settle  upon  new  soil,  and  better  their 
condition  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  not  merely 
(I  must  say  it  here  as  I  have  elsewhere)  for  our 
own  people  who  are  born  amongst  us,  but  as  an 
outlet  for  free  white  people  everywhere,  the 
world  over — in  which  Hans,  and  Baptiste,  and 
Patrick,  and  all  other  men  from  all  the  world, 
may  find  new  homes  and  better  their  condition 
in  life. 

I  have  stated  upon  former  occasions,  and  I 
may  as  well  state  again,  what  I  understand  to  be 
the  real  issue  of  this  controversy  between  Judge 
Douglas  and  myself.  On  the  point  of  my  want- 
ing to  make  war  between  the  free  and  the  slave 
States,  there  has  been  no  issue  between  us.  So, 
too,  when  he  assumes  that  I  am  in  favor  of  in- 
troducing a  perfect  social  and  political  equality 
between  the  white  and  black  races.  These  are 
false  issues,  upon  which  Judge  Douglas  has  tried 
to  force  the  controversy.  There  is  no  foundation 
in  truth  for  the  charge  that  I  maintain  either  of 
these  propositions.     The  real  issue  in  this  con- 


176  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

troversy — the  one  pressing  upon  every  mind — is 
the  sentiment  on  the  part  of  one  class  that  looks 
upon  the  institution  of  slavery  as  a  wrong,  and 
of  another  class  that  does  not  look  upon  it  as  a 
wrong.  The  sentiment  that  contemplates  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  in  this  country  as  a  wrong  is 
the  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  the 
sentiment  around  which  all  their  actions,  all  their 
arguments,  circle ;  from  which  all  their  proposi- 
tions radiate.  They  look  upon  it  as  being  a 
moral,  social,  and  political  wrong;  and  while 
they  contemplate  it  as  such,  they  nevertheless 
have  due  regard  for  its  actual  existence  among 
us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any 
satisfactory  way,  and  to  all  the  constitutional  ob- 
ligations thrown  about  it.  Yet  having  a  due  re- 
gard for  these,  they  desire  a  policy  in  regard  to 
it  that  looks  to  its  not  creating  any  more  danger. 
They  insist  that  it,  as  far  as  may  be,  be  treated 
as  a  wrong,  and  one  of  the  methods  of  treating 
it  as  a  wrong  is  to  make  provision  that  it  shall 
grow  no  larger.  They  also  desire  a  policy  that 
looks  to  a  peaceful  end  of  slavery  some  time,  as 
being  a  wrong.  These  are  the  views  they  enter- 
tain in  regard  to  it,  as  I  understand  them ;  and  all 
their  sentiments,  all  their  arguments  and  propo- 
sitions, are  brought  within  this  range.  I  have 
said,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  there  be  a  man 
amongst  us  who  does  not  think  that  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  is  wrong  in  any  one  of  the  as- 
pects of  which  I  have  spoken,  he  is  misplaced, 
and  ought  not  to  be  with  us.  And  if  there  be  a 
man  amongst  us  who  is  so  impatient  of  it  as  a 
wrong  as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence  among 
us  and  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of  it  suddenly 
in  a  satisfactory  way,  and  to  disregard  the  con- 


1858]  AT  ALTON  177 

stitutional  obligations  thrown  about  it,  that  man 
is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our  platform.  We  dis- 
claim sympathy  with  him  in  practical  action.  He 
is  not  placed  properly  with  us. 

On  this  subject  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  and 
limiting  its  spread,  let  me  say  a  word.  Has  any- 
thing ever  threatened  the  existence  of  this  Union 
save  and  except  this  very  institution  of  slavery? 
What  is  it  that  we  hold  most  dear  amongst  us? 
Our  own  liberty  and  prosperity.  What  has  ever 
threatened  our  liberty  and  prosperity  save  and 
except  this  institution  of  slavery?  If  this  is  true, 
how  do  you  propose  to  improve  the  condition  of 
things  by  enlarging  slavery — by  spreading  it  out 
and  making  it  bigger  ?  You  may  have  a  wen  or 
cancer  upon  your  person,  and  not  be  able  to  cut 
it  out  lest  you  bleed  to  death ;  but  surely  it  is  no 
way  to  cure  it,  to  engraft  it  and  spread  it  all 
over  your  whole  body.  That  is  no  proper  v/ay  of 
treating  what  you  regard  as  a  wrong.  You  see 
this  peaceful  way  of  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong 
— restricting  the  spread  of  it,  and  not  allowing  it 
to  go  into  new  countries  where  it  has  not  already 
existed.  That  is  the  peaceful  way,  the  old-fash- 
ioned way,  the  way  in  which  the  fathers  them- 
selves set  us  the  example. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  said  there  is  a  senti- 
ment which  treats  it  as  not  being  wrong.  That 
is  the  Democratic  sentiment  of  this  day.  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  every  man  who  stands  with- 
in that  range  positively  asserts  that  it  is  right. 
That  class  will  include  all  who  positively  assert 
that  it  is  right,  and  all  who,  like  Judge  Douglas, 
treat  it  as  indifferent,  and  do  not  say  it  is  either 
right  or  wrong.  These  two  classes  of  men  fall 
within  the  general  class  of  those  who  do  not  look 


178  •    DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  i^- 

upon  it  as  a  wrong.  And  if  there  be  among  you 
anybody  who  supposes  that  he,  as  a  Democrat, 
can  consider  himself  "as  much  opposed  to  slavery 
as  anybody,"  I  would  like  to  reason  with  him. 
You  never  treat  is  as  a  wrong.  What  other  thing 
that  you  consider  as  a  wrong,  do  you  deal  with 
as  you  deal  with  that?  Perhaps  you  say  it  is 
wrong,  but  your  leader  never  does,  and  you  quar- 
rel with  anybody  who  says  it  is  wrong.  Although 
you  pretend  to  say  so  yourself,  you  can  find  no 
fit  place  to  deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  You  must 
not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  free  States,  be- 
cause it  is  not  here.  You  must  not  say  anything 
about  it  in  the  slave  States,  because  it  is  there. 
You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  pulpit, 
because  that  is  religion,  and  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in 
politics,  because  that  will  disturb  the  security  of 
'*my  place."  There  is  no  place  to  talk  about  it 
as  being  a  wrong,  although  you  say  yourself  it 
is  a  wrong.  But  finally  you  will  screw  yourself 
up  to  the  belief  that  if  the  people  of  the  slave 
States  should  adopt  a  system  of  gradual  emanci- 
pation on  the  slavery  question,  you  would  be  in 
favor  of  it.  You  would  be  in  favor  of  it !  You 
say  that  is  getting  it  in  the  right  place,  and  you 
would  be  glad  to  see  it  succeed.  But  you  are 
deceiving  yourself.  You  all  know  that  Frank 
Blair  and  Gratz  Brown,  down  there  in  St.  Louis, 
undertook  to  introduce  that  system  in  Missouri. 
They  fought  as  valiantly  as  they  could  for  the 
system  of  gradual  emancipation  which  you  pre- 
tend you  would  be  glad  to  see  succeed.  Now  I 
will  bring  you  to  the  test.  After  a  hard  fight, 
they  were  beaten ;  and  when  the  news  came  over 
here,  you  threw  up  your  hats  and  hurrahed  for 


i8s8]  AT  ALTON'  179 

Democracy.  More  than  that,  take  all  the  argu- 
ment made  in  favor  of  the  system  you  have  pro- 
posed, and  it  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that 
there  is  anything  wrong  in  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery. The  arguments  to  sustain  that  policy  care- 
fully exclude  it.  Even  here  to-day  you  heard 
Judge  Douglas  quarrel  with  me  because  I  ut- 
tered a  wish  that  it  might  some  time  come  to  an 
end.  Although  Henry  Clay  could  say  he  wished 
every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in  the  coun- 
try of  his  ancestors,  I  am  denounced  by  those 
pretending  to  respect  Henry  Clay,  for  uttering  a 
wish  that  it  might  some  time,  in  some  peaceful 
way,  come  to  an  end. 

The  Democratic  policy  in  regard  to  that  insti- 
tution will  not  tolerate  the  merest  breath,  the 
slightest  hint,  of  the  least  degree  of  wrong  about 
it.  Try  it  by  some  of  Judge  Douglas's  argu- 
ments. He  says  he  ''don't  care  whether  it  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down"  in  the  Territories.  I 
do  not  care  myself,  in  dealing  with  that  expres- 
sion, whether  it  is  intended  to  be  expressive  of 
his  individual  sentiments  on  the  subject,  or  only 
of  the  national  policy  he  desires  to  have  estab- 
lished. It  is  alike  valuable  for  my  purpose.  Any 
man  can  say  that  who  does  not  see  anything 
wrong  in  slavery,  but  no  man  can  logically  say 
it  who  does  see  a  wrong  in  it ;  because  no  man 
can  logically  say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong 
is  voted  up  or  voted  down.  He  may  say  he  don't 
care  whether  an  indifferent  thing  is  voted  up  or 
down,  but  he  must  logically  have  a  choice  be- 
tween a  right  thing  and  a  wrong  thing.  He  con- 
tends that  whatever  community  wants  slaves 
has  a  right  to  have  them.  So  they  have  if  it  is 
not  a  wrong.    But  if  it  is  a  wrong,  he  cannot  say 


i8o  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15, 

people  have  a  right  to  do  wrong.  He  says  that,, 
upon  the  score  of  equality,  slaves  should  be  al- 
lowed to  go  into  a  new  Territory  like  other  prop- 
erty. This  is  strictly  logical  if  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  it  and  other  property.  If  it 
and  other  property  are  equal,  his  argument 
is  entirely  logical.  But  if  you  insist  that  one 
is  \yrong  and  the  other  right,  there  is  no  use 
to  institute  a  comparison  between  right  and 
wrong.  You  may  turn  over  everything  in  the 
Democratic  policy  from  beginning  to  end,  wheth- 
er in  the  shape  it  takes  on  the  statute-book,  in 
the  shape  it  takes  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in 
the  shape  it  takes  in  conversation,  or  the  shape  it 
takes  in  short  maxim-like  arguments — it  every- 
where carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is 
anything  wrong  in  it. 

That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that 
will  continue  in  this  country  when  these  poor 
tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  shall  be 
silent.  It  is  the  eternal  struggle  between  these 
two  principles — right  and  wrong — throughout 
the  world.  They  are  the  two  principles  that  have 
stood  face  to  face  from  the  beginning  of  time; 
and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The  one  is 
the  common  right  of  humanity,  and  the  other  the 
divine  right  of  kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in 
whatever  shape  it  develops  itself.  It  is  the  same 
spirit  that  says,  *'You  toil  and  work  and  earn 
bread,  and  I'll  eat  it."  No  matter  in  what 
shape  it  comes,  whether  from  the  m.outh  of  a 
king  who  seeks  to  bestride  the  people  of  his  own 
nation  and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or 
from  one  race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslav- 
ing another  race,  it  is  the  same  tyrannical  prin- 
ciple.    I  was  glad  to  express  my  gratitude  at 


1858]  AT  ALTON  x8i 

Quincy,  and  I  reexpress  it  here  to  Judge  Doug- 
las— that  he  looks  to  no  end  of  the  institution  of 
slavery.  That  will  help  the  people  to  see  where 
the  struggle  really  is.  It  will  hereafter  place 
with  us  all  men  who  really  do  wish  the  wrong 
may  have  an  end.  And  whenever  we  can  get  rid 
of  the  fog  which  obscures  the  real  question, — 
when  we  can  get  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends 
to  avow  a  policy  looking  to  its  perpetuation, — 
we  can  get  out  from  among  them  that  class  of 
men  and  bring  them  to  the  side  of  those  who 
treat  it  as  a  wrong.  Then  there  will  soon  be  an 
end  to  it,  and  that  end  will  be  its  "ultimate  ex- 
tinction." Whenever  the  issue  can  be  distinctly 
made,  and  all  extraneous  matter  thrown  out,  so 
that  men  can  fairly  see  the  real  difference  be- 
tween the  parties,  this  controversy  will  soon  be 
settled,  and  it  will  be  done  peaceably  too.  There 
will  be  no  war,  no  violence.  It  will  be  placed 
again  where  the  wisest  and  best  men  of  the  world 
placed  it.  Brooks  of  South  Carolina*  once  de- 
clared that  when  this  Constitution  was  framed, 
its  framers  did  not  look  to  the  institution  exist- 
ing until  this  day.  When  he  said  this,  I  think  he 
stated  a  fact  that  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  history 
of  the  times.  But  he  also  said  they  were  better 
and  wiser  men  than  the  men  of  these  days ;  yet 
the  men  of  these  days  had  experience  which  they 
had  not,  and  by  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  f 
it  became  a  necessity  in  this  country  that  slavery 

*  Preston  S.  Brooks,  who  physically  assaulted  Charles 
Sumner,  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber, May  22,  1856,  in  return  for  a  verbal  castigation  that 
Sumner  had  given  Senator  Butler  of  South  Carolina, 
Brooks'  kinbman,  in  a  speech  on  the  Kansas  question. 

t  Invented  by  Eli  Whitney  in  1793.  By  this  the  capacity 
of  labor  in  picking  cotton  was  increased  fifty-fold. 


1.82  DEBATE.  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15. 

should  be  perpetual.  I  now  say  that,  willingly 
or  unwillingly,  purposely  or  without  purpose, 
Judge  Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent  in- 
strument in  changing  the  position  of  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery, — which  the  fathers  of  the  gov- 
ernment expected  to  come  to  an  end  ere  this, — - 
and  putting  it  upon  Brooks's  cotton-gin  basis — 
placing  it  where  he  openly  confesses  he  has  no 
desire  there  shall  ever  be  an  end  of  it. 

I  understand  I  have  ten  minutes  yet.  I  will 
employ  it  in  saying  something  about  this  argu- 
ment Judge  Douglas  uses,  while  he  sustains  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  that  the  people  of  the  Ter- 
ritories can  still  somehow  exclude  slavery.  The 
first  thing  I  ask  attention  to  is  the  fact  that  Judge 
Douglas  constantly  said,  before  the  decision,  that 
whether  they  could  or  not,  was  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court.  But  after  the  court  has  made 
the  decision,  he  virtually  says  it  is  not  a  question 
for  the  Supreme  Court,  but  for  the  people.  And 
how  is  it  he  tells  us  they  can  exclude  it?  He 
says  it  needs  ''police  regulations,"  and  that  ad- 
mits of  ''unfriendly  legislation."  Although  it  is 
a  right  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  take  a  slave  into  a  Territory  of 
the  United  States  and  hold  him  as  property,  yet 
unless  the  territorial  legislature  will  give  friendly 
legislation,  and,  more  especially,  if  they  adopt 
unfriendly  legislation,  they  can  practically  ex- 
clude him.  Now,  without  meeting  this  proposi- 
tion as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  pass  to  consider  the 
real  constitutional  obligation.  Let  me  take  the 
gentleman  who  looks  me  in  the  face  before  me, 
and  let  us  suppose  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  ter- 
ritorial legislature.  The  first  thing  he  will  do  will 
be  to  swear,  that  he  will  support  the  Constitution 


1858]  AT  ALTON  183 

of  the  United  States.  His  neighbor  by  his  side 
in  the  Territory  has  slaves  and  needs  territorial 
legislation  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  constitu- 
tional right.  Can  he  withhold  the  legislation 
which  his  neighbor  needs  for  the  enjoyment  of  a 
right  which  is  fixed  in  his  favor  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  which  he  has  sworn  to 
support?  Can  he  withhold  it  without  violating 
his  oath?  And  more  especially,  can  he  pass  un- 
friendly legislation  to  violate  his  oath?  Why, 
this  is  a  monstrous  sort  of  talk  about  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States !  There  has  never 
been  as  outlandish  or  lawless  a  doctrine  from  the 
mouth  of  any  respectable  man  on  earth.  I  do 
not  believe  it  is  a  constitutional  right  to  hold 
slaves  in  a  Territory  of  the  United  States.  I 
believe  the  decision  was  improperly  made,  and  I 
go  for  reversing  it.  Judge  Douglas  is  furious 
against  those  who  go  for  reversing  a  decision. 
But  he  is  for  legislating  it  out  of  all  force  while 
the  law  itself  stands.  I  repeat  that  there  has 
never  been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine  uttered  from 
the  mouth  of  a  respectable  man. 

I  suppose  most  of  us  (I  know  it  of  myself) 
believe  that  the  people  of  the  Southern  States 
are  entitled  to  a  congressional  fugitive-slave  law ; 
that  is  a  right  fixed  in  the  Constitution.  But  it 
cannot  be  made  available  to  them  without  con- 
gressional legislation.  In  the  judge's  language, 
it  is  a  "barren  right"  which  needs  legislation  be- 
fore it  can  become  efficient  and  valuable  to  the 
persons  to  whom  it  is  guaranteed.  And,  as  the 
right  is  constitutional,  I  agree  that  the  legislation 
shall  be  granted  to  it.  Not  that  we  like  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery;  we  profess  to  have  no  taste 
for   running  and  catching  negroes — at  least,  1 


i84  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

profess  no  taste  for  that  job  at  all.  Why  then 
do  I  yield  support  to  a  fugitive-slave  law?  Be- 
cause I  do  not  understand  that  the  Constitution, 
which  guarantees  that  right,  can  be  supported 
without  it.  And  if  I  believed  that  the  right  to 
hold  a  slave  in  a  Territory  was  equally  fixed  in 
the  Constitution  with  the  right  to  reclaim  fugi- 
tives, I  should  be  bound  to  give  it  the  legislation 
necessary  to  support  it.  I  say  that  no  man  can 
deny  his  obligation  to  give  the  necessary  legisla- 
tion "to  support  slavery  in  a  Territory,  who  be- 
lieves it  is  a  constitutional  right  to  have  it  there. 
No  man  can,  who  does  not  give  the  Abolitionists 
an  argument  to  deny  the  obligation  enjoined  by 
the  Constitution  to  enact  a  fugitive-slave  law. 
Try  it  now.  It  is  the  strongest  Abolition  argu- 
ment ever  made.  I  say,  if  that  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision is  correct,  then  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a 
Territory  is  equally  a  constitutional  right  with 
the  right  of  a  slaveholder  to  have  his  runaway 
returned.  No  one  can  show  the  distinction  be- 
tween them.  The  one  is  express,  so  that  we  can- 
not deny  it;  the  other  is  construed  to  be  in  the 
Constitution,  so  that  he  who  beHeves  the  decision 
to  be  correct  believes  in  the  right.  And  the  man 
who  argues  that  by  unfriendly  legislation,  in 
spite  of  that  constitutional  right,  slavery  may  be 
driven  from  the  Territories,  cannot  avoid  fur- 
nishing an  argument  by  which  Abolitionists  may 
deny  the  obligation  to  return  fugitives,  and  claim 
the  power  to  pass  laws  unfriendly  to  the  right  of 
the  slaveholder  to  reclaim  his  fugitive.  I  do  not 
know  how  such  an  argument  may  strike  a  pop- 
ular assembly  like  this,  but  I  defy  anybody  to  go 
before  a  body  of  men  whose  minds  are  educated 
to  estimating  evidence  and  reasoning,  and  show 


1858]  AT  ALTON  185 

that  there  is  an  iota  of  difference  between  the 
constitutional  right  to  reclaim  a  fugitive,  and  the 
constitutional  right  to  hold  a  slave,  in  a  Territory, 
provided  this  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct.  I 
defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument  that  will 
justify  unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slave- 
holder of  his  right  to  hold  his  slave  in  a  Terri- 
tory, that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its  length, 
breadth,  and  thickness,  furnish  an  argument  for 
nullifying  the  fugitive-slave  law.  Why,  there  is 
not  such  an  Abolitionist  in  the  nation  as  Doug- 
las, after  all. 


Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  concluded  his  remarks  by  saying 
that  there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  as  I  am  in  all 
America.  If  he  could  make  the  Abolitionists  of  Illinois 
believe  that,  he  would  not  have  much  show  for  the 
Senate.  Let  him  make  the  Abolitionists  believe  the 
truth  of  that  statement,  and  his  political  back  is 
broken. 

His  first  criticism  upon  me  is  the  expression  of  his 
hope  that  the  war  of  the  administration  will  be  prose- 
cuted against  me  and  the  Democratic  party  of  this 
State  with  vigor.  He  wants  that  war  prosecuted  with 
vigor ;  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  His  hopes  of  success, 
and  the  hopes  of  his  party,  depend  solely  upon  it. 
They  have  no  chance  of  destroying  the  Democracy 
of  this  State  except  by  the  aid  of  federal  patronage. 
He  has  all  the  federal  ofifice-holders  here  as  his  allies, 
running  separate  tickets  against  the  Democracy  to 
divide  the  party,  although  the  leaders  all  intend  to 
vote  directly  the  Abolition  ticket,  and  only  leave  the 
greenhorns  to  vote  this  separate  ticket  who  refuse  to 
go  into  the  Abolition  camp.  There  is  something  really 
refreshing  in  the  thought  that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  in  favor 
of  prosecuting  one  war  vigorously.  It  is  the  first  war 
I  ever  know  him  to  be  in  favor  of  prosecuting.  It  is 
the  first  war  that  I  ever  knew  him  to  believe  to  be  just 
or  constitutional.     When  the  Mexican  war  was  being 


i8$  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

waged,  and  the  American  army  was  surrounded  by  the 
enemy  in  Mexico,  he  thought  the  war  was  unconstitu- 
tional, unnecessary,  and  unjust.  He  thought  it  was 
not  commenced  on  the  right  spot. 

When  I  made  an  incidental  allusion  of  that  kind  in 
the  joint  discussion  over  at  Charleston,  some  weeks 
ago,  Lincoln,  in  replying,  said  that  I,  Douglas,  had 
charged  him  with  voting  against  supplies  for  the 
Mexican  war,  and  then  he  reared  up,  full  length,  and 
swore  that  he  never  voted  against  the  supplies, — that 
it  was  a  slander, — and  caught  hold  of  Ficklin,  who  sat 
on  the  stand,  and  said,  *'Here,  Ficklin,  tell  the  people 
that  it  is  a  lie."  Well,  Ficklin,  who  had  served  in 
Congress  with  him,  stood  up  and  told  them  all  he 
recollected  about  it.  It  was  that  when  George  Ash- 
mun,  of  Massachusetts,  brought  forward  a  resolution 
declaring  the  war  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and 
unjust,  Lincoln  had  voted  for  it.  "Yes,"  said  Lincoln, 
"I  did."  Thus  he  confessed  that  he  voted  that  the  war 
was  wrong,  that  our  country  was  in  the  wrong,  and 
consequently  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  the  right;  but 
charged  that  I  had  slandered  him  by  saying  that  he 
voted  against  the  supplies.  I  never  charged  him  with 
voting  against  the  supplies  in  my  life,  because  I  knew 
that  he  was  not  in  Congress  when  they  were  voted. 
The  war  was  commenced  on  the  13th  day  of  May, 
1846,  and  on  that  day  we  appropriated  in  Congress 
ten  millions  of  dollars  and  fifty  thousand  men  to 
prosecute  it.  During  the  same  session  we  voted  more 
men  and  more  money,  and  at  the  next  session  we  voted 
more  men  and  more  money,  so  that  by  the  time  Mr. 
Lincoln  entered  Congress  we  had  enough  men  and 
enough  money  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  had  no  oc- 
casion to  vote  for  any  more.  When  he  got  into  the 
House,  being  opposed  to  the  war,  and  not  being  able 
to  stop  the  supplies,  because  they  had  all  gone  for- 
ward, all  he  could  do  was  to  follow  the  lead  of  Corwin, 
and  prove  that  the  war  was  not  begun  on  the  right 
spot,  and  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  unnecessary, 
and  wrong.  Remember,  too,  that  this  he  did  after  the 
war  had  been  begun.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  opposed 
to  the  declaration  of  a  war,  another  and  very  different 
thing  to  take  sides  with  the  enemy  against  your  own 
country  after  the  war  has  been  commenced.  Our 
army   was   in   Mexico   at   the  time,   many  battles  had 


iSsS]  .  AT  ALTON  187 

been  fought;  our  citizens,  who  were  defending  the 
honor  of  their  country's  flag,  were  surrounded  by  the 
daggers,  the  guns,  and  the  poison  of  the  enemy. 
Then  it  was  that  Corwin  made  his  speech  in  which  he 
declared  that  the  American  soldiers  ought  to  be  wel- 
comed by  the  Mexicans  with  bloody  hands  and  hospi- 
table graves ;  then  it  was  that  Ashmun  and  Lincoln 
voted  in  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  war 
was  unconstitutional  and  unjust;  and  Ashmuii's  resolu- 
tion, Corwin's  speech,  and  Lincoln's  vote  were  sent  to 
Mexico  and  read  at  the  head  of  the  Mexican  army, 
to  prove  to  them  that  there  was  a  Mexican  party  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  who  were  doing  all 
in  their  power  to  aid  them.  That  a  man  who  takes 
sides  with  the  common  enemy  against  his  own  country 
in  time  of  war  should  rejoice  in  a  war  being  made  on 
me  now,  is  very  natural.  And,  in  my  opinion,  no 
other  kind  of  a  man  would  rejoice  in  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  told  you  a  great  deal  to-day  about 
his  being  an  old-line  Clay  Whig.  Bear  in  mind  that 
there  are  a  great  many  old  Clay  Whigs  down  in  this 
region.  It  is  more  agreeable,  therefore,  for  him  to 
talk  about  the  old  Clay  Whig  party  than  it  is  for  him 
to  talk  Abolitionism.  We  did  not  hear  much  about 
the  old  Clay  Whig  party  up  in  the  Abolition  districts. 
How  much  of  an  old-line  Henry  Clay  Whig  was  he? 
Have  you  read  General  Singleton's  speech  at  Jackson- 
ville? You  know  that  General  Singleton  was,  for 
twenty-five  years,  the  confidential  friend  of  Henry 
Clay  in  Illinois,  and  he  testified  that  in  1847,  when  the 
constitutional  convention  of  this  State  was  in  session, 
the  Whig  members  were  invited  to  a  Whig  caucus  at 
the  house  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  brother-in-law,  where  Mr. 
Lincoln  proposed  to  throw  Henry  Clay  overboard  and 
take  up  General  Taylor  in  his  place,  giving,  as  his 
reason,  that  if  the  Whigs  did  not  take  up  General 
Taylor,  the  Democrats  would.  Singleton  testifies 
that  Lincoln,  in  that  speech,  urged,  as  another  reason 
for  throwing  Henry  Clay  overboard,  that  the  Whigs 
had  fought  long  enough  for  principle,  and  ought  to 
begin  to  fight  for  success.  Singleton  also  testifies 
that  Lincoln's  speech  did  have  the  effect  of  cutting 
Clay's  throat,  and  that  he  (Singleton)  and  others  with- 
drew from  the  caucus  in  indignation.  He  further 
states   that   when   they   got   to   Philadelphia   to   attend 


i88  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  ig 

the  national  convention  of  the  Whig  party,  that  Lin- 
coln was  there,  the  bitter  and  deadly  enemy  of  Clay, 
and  that  he  tried  to  keep  him  (Singleton)  out  of  the 
convention  because  he  insisted  on  voting  for  Clay,  and 
Lincoln  was  determined  to  have  Taylor.  Singleton 
says  that  Lincoln  rejoiced  with  very  great  joy  when  he 
found  the  mangled  remains  of  the  murdered  Whig 
statesman  lying  cold  before  him.  Now  Mr.  Lincoln 
tells  you  that  he  is  an  old-line  Clay  Whig!  General 
Singleton  testifies  to  the  facts  I  have  narrated,  in  a 
public  speech  which  has  been  printed  and  circulated 
broadcast  over  the  State  for  weeks,  yet  not  a  lisp  have 
we  heard  from  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  subject,  except  that 
he  is  an  old  Clay  Whig. 

What  part  of  Henry  Clay's  policy  did  Lincoln  ever 
advocate?  He  was  in  Congress  in  1848-49,  when  the 
Wilmot  proviso  warfare  disturbed  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  country,  until  it  shook  the  foundation 
of  the  republic  from  its  center  to  its  circumference. 
It  was  that  agitation  that  brought  Clay  forth  from 
his  retirement  at  Ashland  again  to  occupy  his  seat  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  to  see  if  he  could  not, 
by  his  great  wisdom  and  experience,  and  the  renown 
of  his  name,  do  something  to  restore  peace  and  quiet 
to  a  disturbed  country.  Who  got  up  that  sectional 
strife  that  Clay  had  to  be  called  upon  to  quell?  I  have 
heard  Lincoln  boast  that  he  voted  forty-two  times  for 
the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  that  he  would  have  voted  as 
many  times  more  if  he  could.  Lincoln  is  the  man,  in 
connection  with  Seward,  Chase,  Giddings,  and  other 
Abolitionists,  who  got  up  that  strife  that  I  helped  Clay 
to  put  down.  Henry  Clay  came  back  to  the  Senate  in 
1849,  and  saw  that  he  must  do  something  to  restore 
peace  to  the  country.  The  Union  Whigs  and  the 
Union  Democrats  welcomed  him  the  moment  he  ar- 
rived, as  the  man  for  the  occasion.  We  believed  that 
he,  of  all  men  on  earth,  had  been  preserved  by  divine 
providence  to  guide  us  out  of  our  difficulties,  and  we 
Democrats  rallied  under  Clay  then,  as  you  Whigs  in 
nullification  times  rallied  under  the  banner  of  old  Jack- 
son, forgetting  party  when  the  country  was  in  danger, 
in  order  that  we  might  have  a  country  first  and  parties 
afterward. 

And  this  reminds  me  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  you  that 
the  slavery  question  was  the  only  thing  that  ever  dis- 


1858]  AT  ALTON  189 

turbed  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union.  Did  not 
nullification  once  raise  its  head  and  disturb  the  peace 
of  this  Union  in  1832?  Was  that  the  slavery  question, 
Mr.  Lincoln?  Did  not  disunion  raise  its  monster  head 
during  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain?  Was  that  the 
slavery  question,  Mr.  Lincoln?  The  peace  of  this 
country  has  been  disturbed  three  times,  once  during 
the  war  with  Great  Britain,  once  on  the  tariff  question, 
and,  once  on  the  slavery  question.  His  argument, 
therefore,  that  slavery  is  Lhe  only  question  that  has 
ever  created  dissension  in  the  Union  falls  to  the 
ground.  It  is  true  that  agitators  are  enabled  now  to 
use  this  slavery  question  for  the  purpose  of  sectional 
strife.  He  admits  that,  in  regard  to  all  things  else, 
the  principle  that  I  advocate,  making  each  State  and 
Territory  free  to  decide  for  itself,  ought  to  prevail. 
He  instances  the  cranberry  laws,  and  the  oyster  laws, 
and  he  might  have  gone  through  the  whole  list  with 
the  same  effect.  I  say  that  all  these  laws  are  local  and 
domestic,  and  the  local  and  domestic  concerns  should 
be  left  to  each  State  and  Territory  to  manage  for  it- 
self. If  agitators  would  acquiesce  in  that  principle, 
there  never  would  be  any  danger  to  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  Union, 

Mr.  Lincoln  tries  to  avoid  the  main  issue  by  attack- 
ing the  truth  of  my  proposition,  that  our  fathers  made 
this  government  divided  into  free  and  slave  States, 
recognizing  the  right  of  each  to  decide  all  its  local 
questions  for  itself.  Did  they  not  thus  make  it?  It  is 
true  that  they  did  not  establish  slavery  in  any  of  the 
States,  or  abolish  it  in  any  of  them;  but  finding  thir- 
teen States,  twelve  of  which  were  slave  and  one  free, 
they  agreed  to  form  a  government  uniting  them  to- 
gether, as  they  stood,  divided  into  free  and  slave 
States,  and  to  guarantee  forever  to  each  State  the 
right  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  slavery  question. 
Having  thus  made  the  government,  and  conferred  this 
right  upon  each  State  forever,  I  assert  that  this 
government  can  exist  as  they  made  it,  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States,  if  any  one  State  chooses  to  retain 
slavery.  He  says  that  he  looks  forward  to  a  time 
when  slavery  shall  be  abolished  everywhere.  I  look 
forward  to  the  time  when  each  State  shall  be  allowed 
to  do  as  it  pleases.  If  it  chooses  to  keep  slavery  for- 
ever, it  is  not  my  business,  but  its  own;  if  it  chooses 


I90  DEBATE  WITH  DOUGLAS        [Oct.  15 

to  abolish  slavery,  it  is  its  own  business,  not  mine.  I 
care  more  for  the  great  principle  of  self-government, 
the  right  of  the  people  to  rule,  than  I  do  for  all  the 
negroes  in  Christendom.  I  would  not  endanger  the 
perpetuity  of  this  Union;  I  would  not  blot  out  the  great 
inalienable  rights  of  the  white  men  for  all  the  negroes 
that  ever  existed.  Hence,  I  say,  let  us  maintain  this 
government  on  the  principles  on  which  our  fathers 
made  it,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  State  to  keep 
slavery  as  long  as  its  people  determine,  or  to  abolish 
it  when  they  please.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  when 
our  fathers  made  this  government  they  did  not  look 
forward  to  the  state  of  things  now  existing,  and  there- 
fore he  thinks  the  doctrine  was  wrong;  and  he  quotes 
Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  to  prove  that  our  fathers 
then  thought  that  probably  slavery  would  be  abolished 
by  each  State  acting  for  itself  before  this  time.  Sup- 
pose they  did;  suppose  they  did  not  foresee  what  has 
occurred — does  that  change  the  principles  of  our  gov- 
ernment? They  did  not  probably  foresee  the  telegraph 
that  transmits  intelligence  by  lightning;  nor  did  they 
foresee  the  railroads  that  now  form  the  bonds  of  union 
between  the  different  States;  or  the  thousand  me- 
chanical inventions  that  have  elevated  mankind.  But 
do  these  things  change  the  principles  of  the  govern- 
ment? Our  fathers,  I  say,  made  this  government  on 
the  principle  of  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it 
pleases  in  its  own  domestic  affairs,  subject  to  the  Con- 
stitution, and  allowed  the  people  of  each  to  apply  to 
every  new  change  of  circumstances  such  remedy  as 
they  may  see  fit  to  improve  their  condition.  This 
right  they  have  for  all  time  to  come. 

Mr.  Lincoln  went  on  to  tell  you  that  he  does  not  at 
all  desire  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States  where 
it  exists,  nor  does  his  party.  I  expected  him  to  say 
that  down  here.  Let  me  ask  him  then  how  he  expects 
to  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction 
everywhere,  if  he  does  not  intend  to  interfere  with  it 
in  the  States  where  it  exists?  He  says  that  he  will 
prohibit  it  in  all  Territories,  and  the  inference  is,  then, 
that  unless  they  make  free  States  out  of  them  he  will 
keep  them  out  of  the  Union;  for,  mark  you,  he  did 
not  say  whether  or  not  he  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas 
with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  might  apply  (he 
forgot  that,  as  usual);  he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he 


i858]  AT  ALTON  191 

was  in  favor  of  bringing  the  Territories  now  in 
existence  into  the  Union  on  the  principle  of  Clay's 
compromise  measures  on  the  slavery  question.  I  told 
you  that  he  would  not.  His  idea  is  that  he  will  pro- 
hibit slavery  in  all  the  Territories,  and  thus  force  them 
all  to  become  free  States,  surrounding  the  slave  States 
with  a  cordon  of  free  States  and  hemming  them  in, 
keeping  the  slaves  confined  to  their  present  limits  whilst 
they  go  on  multiplying  until  the  soil  on  which  they 
live  will  no  longer  feed  them,  and  he  will  thus  be  able 
to  put  slavery  in  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction  by  star- 
vation. He  will  extinguish  slavery  in  the  Southern  States 
as  the  French  general  extinguished  the  Algerines  when 
he  smoked  them  out.  He  is  going  to  extinguish 
slavery  by  surrounding  the  slave  States,  hemming  in 
the  slaves,  and  starving  them  out  of  existence,  as  you 
smoke  a  fox  out  of  his  hole.  He  intends  to  do  that  in 
the  name  of  humanity  and  Christianity,  in  order  that 
we  may  get  rid  of  the  terrible  crime  and  sin  entailed 
upon  our  fathers  of  holding  slaves.  Mr.  Lincoln 
makes  out  that  line  of  policy,  and  appeals  to  the  moral 
sense  of  justice  and  to  the  Christian  feeling  of  the 
community  to  sustain  him.  He  says  that  any  man 
who  holds  to  the  contrary  doctrine  is  in  the  position 
of  the  king  who  claimed  to  govern  by  divine  right. 
Let  us  examine  for  a  moment  and  see  what  principle 
it  was  that  overthrew  the  divine  right  of  George  HL 
to  govern  us.  Did  not  these  colonies  rebel  because 
the  British  parliament  had  no  right  to  pass  laws  con- 
cerning our  property  and  domestic  and  private  institu- 
tions without  our  consent?  We  demanded  that  the 
British  government  should  not  pass  such  laws  unless 
they  gave  us  representation  in  the  body  passing  them — 
and  this  the  British  government  insisting  on  doing,  we 
went  to  war,  on  the  principle  that  the  home  govern- 
ment should  not  control  and  govern  distant  colonies 
without  giving  them  a  representation.  Now  Mr.  Lin- 
coln proposes  to  govern  the  Territories  without  giving 
them  a  representation,  and  calls  on  Congress  to  pass 
laws  controlling  their  property  and  domestic  concerns 
without  their  consent  and  against  their  will.  Thus  he 
asserts  for  his  party  the  identical  principle  asserted  by 
George  HI.  and  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution. 

I  ask  you  to  look  into  these  things,  and  then  tell  me 
whether  the  Democracy  or  the  Abolitionists  are  right 


192 


SPEECHES  [Mar.  1 


I  hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State  (I  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  letter 
of  acceptance),  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  The  point  upon  which  Chief  Justice  Taney 
expresses  his  opinion  is  simply  this,  that  slaves,  being 
property,  stand  on  an  equal  footing  with  other 
property,  and  consequently  that  the  owner  has  the 
same  right  to  carry  that  property  into  a  Territory  that 
he  has  any  other,  subject  to  the  same  conditions.  Sup- 
pose that  one  of  your  merchants  was  to  take  fifty  or 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  liquors  to 
Kansas.  He  has  a  right  to  go  there  under  that 
decision,  but  when  he  gets  there  he  finds  the  Maine 
liquor-law  in  force,  and  what  can  he  do  with  his 
property  after  he  gets  it  there?  He  cannot  sell  it,  he 
cannot  use  it,  it  is  subject  to  the  local  law,  and  that 
law  is  against  him,  and  the  best  thing  he  can  do  with  it 
is  to  bring  it  back  into  Missouri  or  Illinois  and  sell  it. 
If  you  take  negroes  to  Kansas,  as  Colonel  Jefferson 
Davis  said  in  his  Bangor  speech,  from  which  I  have 
quoted  to-day,  you  must  take  them  there  subject  to  the 
local  law.  If  the  people  want  the  institution  of  slavery, 
they  will  protect  and  encourage  it;  but  if  they  do  not 
want  it,  they  will  withhold  that  protection,  and  the 
absence  of  local  legislation  protecting  slavery  excludes 
it  as  completely  as  a  positive  prohibition.  You  slave- 
holders of  Missouri  might  as  well  understand  what 
you  know  practically,  that  you  cannot  carry  slavery 
where  the  people  do  not  want  it.  All  you  have  a  right 
to  ask  is  that  the  people  shall  do  as  they  please;  if 
they  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it;  if  they  do  not  want 
it,  allow  them  to  refuse  to  encourage  it. 

My  friends,  if,  as  I  have  said  before,  we  only  live 
up  to  this  great  fundamental  principle,  there  will  be 
peace  between  the  North  and  the  South.  Mr.  Lincoln 
admits  that  under  the  Constitution,  on  all  domestic 
questions  except  slavery,  we  ought  not  to  interfere 
with  the  people  of  each  State.  What  right  have  we  to 
interfere  with  slavery  any  more  than  we  have  to  in- 
terfere with  any  other  question?  He  says  that  this 
slavery  question  is  now  the  bone  of  contention.  Why? 
Simply  because  agitators  have  combined  in  all  the 
free  States  to  make  war  upon  it.  Suppose  the  agita- 
tors in  the  States  should  combine  in  one  half  of  the 


iS59l  AT  CHICAGO  193 

Union  to  make  war  upon  the  railroad  system  of  the 
other  half.  They  would  thus  be  driven  to  the  same 
sectional  strife.  Suppose  one  section  makes  war  upon 
any  other  peculiar  institution  of  the  opposite  section, 
and  the  same  strife  is  produced.  The  only  remedy  and 
safety  is  that  we  shall  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  obey  the  laws  as  they  are  passed, 
while  they  stand  the  proper  test,  and  sustain  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  constituted 
authorities. 


The  "Moral  Climate  Line"  of  Douglas. 

Lincoln's  Speech  at  Chicago  on  the  Night 

OF    THE    AIUXICIPAL    ELECTION.        MaRCH     I, 

1859. 

I  understand  that  you  have  to-day  rallied 
around  your  principles,  and  they  have  again 
triumphed  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  I  am  ex- 
ceedingly happy  to  meet  you  under  such  cheering 
auspices  on  this  occasion — the  first  on  which  I 
have  appeared  before  an  audience  since  the  cam- 
paign of  last  year.  It  is  unsuitable  to  enter  into 
a  lengthy  discourse,  as  is  quite  apparent,  at  a 
moment  like  this,  I  shall  therefore  detain  you 
only  a  very  short  while. 

It  gives  me  peculiar  pleasure  to  find  an  oppor- 
tunit}'  under  such  favorable  circumstances  to  re- 
turn my  thanks  for  the  gallant  support  that  the 
Republicans  of  the  city  of  Chicago  and  of  the 
State  gave  to  the  cause  in  which  we  were  all 
^"&^fe^d  in  the  late  momentous  struggle  in  Illi- 
nois. 

I  remember  in  that  canvass  but  one  instance 
of  dissatisfaction  with  my  course,  and  I  allude 
to  that  now  not  for  the  purpose  of  reviving  any 
matter  of  dispute  or  producing  any  unpleasant 


194 


SPEECHES  [Mar.  i 


feeling,  but  in  order  to  help  to  get  rid  of  the  point 
upon  which  that  matter  of  disagreement  or  dis- 
satisfaction arose.  I  understand  that  in  some 
speeches  I  made  I  said  something,  or  was  sup- 
posed to  have  said  something,  that  some  very- 
good  people,  as  I  really  believe  them  to  be,  com- 
mented upon  unfavorably,  and  said  that  rather 
than  support  one  holding  such  sentiments  as  I 
had  expressed,  the  real  friends  of  liberty  could 
afford  to  wait  a  while.  I  don't  want  to  say  any- 
thing that  shall  excite  unkind  feeling,  and  I  men- 
tion this  simply  to  suggest  that  I  am  afraid  of  the 
effect  of  that  sort  of  argument.  I  do  not  doubt 
that  it  comes  from  good  men,  but  I  am  afraid  of 
the  result  upon  organized  action  where  great  re- 
sults are  in  view,  if  any  of  us  allow  ourselves  to 
seek  out  minor  or  separate  points,  on  which  there 
may  be  difference  of  views  as  to  policy  and  right, 
and  let  them  keep  us  from  uniting  in  action  upon 
a  great  principle  in  a  cause  on  which  we  all 
agree ;  or  are  deluded  into  the  belief  that  all 
can  be  brought  to  consider  alike  and  agree  upon 
every  minor  point  before  we  unite  and  press 
forward  in  organization,  asking  the  cooperation 
of  all  good  men  in  that  resistance  to  the  extension 
of  slavery  upon  which  we  all  agree.  I  am  afraid 
that  such  methods  would  result  in  keeping  the 
friends  of  liberty  waiting  longer  than  we  ought 
to.  I  say  this  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting  that 
we  consider  whether  it  would  not  be  better  and 
wiser,  so  long  as  we  all  agree  that  this  matter  of 
slavery  is  a  moral,  political,  and  social  wrong, 
and  ought  to  be  treated  as  a  wrong,  not  to  let 
anything  minor  or  subsidiary  to  that  main  prin- 
ciple and  purpose  make  us  fail  to  cooperate. 
One  other  thing, — and  that  again  I  say  in  no 


i859]  AT  CHICAGO  195 

spirit  of  unkindness.  There  was  a  question 
amongst  Republicans  all  the  time  of  the  canvass 
of  last  year,  and  it  has  not  quite  ceased  yet, 
whether  it  was  not  the  true  and  better  policy  for 
the  Republicans  to  make  it  their  chief  object  to 
reelect  Judge  Douglas  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  Now,  I  differ  with  those  who 
thought  that  the  true  policy,  but  I  have  never 
said  an  unkind  word  of  any  one  entertaining  that 
opinion.  I  believe  most  of  them  were  as  sincerely 
the  friends  of  our  cause  as  I  claim  to  be  myself ; 
yet  I  thought  they  were  mistaken,  and  I  speak  of 
this  now  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  course 
that  I  took  and  the  course  of  those  who  sup- 
ported me.  In  what  I  say  now  there  is  no  un- 
kindness even  toward  Judge  Douglas.  I  have 
beHeved  that  in  the  Republican  situation  in  Illi- 
nois, if  we,  the  Republicans  of  this  State,  had 
made  Judge  Douglas  our  candidate  for  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  last  year,  and  had  elected 
him,  there  would  to-day  be  no  Republican  party 
in  this  Union.  I  believe  that  the  principles 
around  which  we  have  rallied  and  organized  that 
party  would  live;  they  will  live  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, while  we  will  die.  They  would  re- 
produce another  party  in  the  future.  But  in  the 
meantime  all  the  labor  that  has  been  done  to 
build  up  the  present  Republican  party  would  be 
entirely  lost,  and  perhaps  twenty  years  of  time, 
before  we  would  again  have  formed  around  that 
principle  as  solid,  extensive,  and  formidable  an 
organization  as  we  have,  standing  shoulder  to 
shoulder,  to-night,  in  harmony  and  strength 
around  the  RepubHcan  banner. 

It  militates  not  at  all  against  this  view  to  tell 
us  that  the  Republicans  could  make  something 


196  SPEECHES  [Mar.  i 

in  the  State  of  New  York  by  electing  to  Congress 
John  B.  Haskin,  who  occupied  a  position  similar 
to  Judge  Douglas ;  or  that  they  could  make  some- 
thing by  electing  Hickman  of  Pennsylvania,  or 
Davis  of  Indiana.  I  think  it  likely  that  they  could 
and  do  make  something  by  it ;  but  it  is  false  logic 
to  assume  that  for  that  reason  anything  could  be 
gained  by  us  in  electing  Judge  Douglas  in  Illi- 
nois. And  for  this  reason :  It  is  no  disparage- 
ment to  these  men,  Hickman  and  Davis,  to  say 
that  individually  they  were  comparatively  small 
men,  and  the  Republican  party  could  take  hold  of 
them,  use  them,  elect  them,  absorb  them,  expel 
them,  or  do  whatever  it  pleased  with  them,  and 
the  Republican  organization  be  in  no  wise 
shaken.  But  it  is  not  so  with  Judge  Douglas. 
Let  the  Republican  party  of  Illinois  dally  with 
Judge  Douglas ;  let  them  fall  in  behind  him  and 
make  him  their  candidate,  and  they  do  not  absorb 
him — he  absorbs  them.  They  would  come  out 
at  the  end  all  Douglas  men,  all  claimed  by  him 
as  having  indorsed  every  one  of  his  doctrines 
upon  the  great  subject  with  which  the  whole  na- 
tion is  engaged  at  this  hour — that  the  question 
of  negro  slavery  is  simply  a  question  of  dollars 
and  cents ;  that  the  Almighty  has  drawn  a  line 
across  the  continent,  on  one  side  of  which  labor 
— the  cultivation  of  the  soil — must  always  be 
performed  by  slaves.  It  would  be  claimed  that 
we,  like  him,  do  not  care  whether  slavery  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down.  Had  we  made  him  our 
candidate  and  given  him  a  great  majority,  we 
should  never  have  heard  an  end  of  declarations 
by  him  that  we  had  indorsed  all  these  dogmas. 

You  all  remember  that  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress  there  was  a  measure  introduced  in  the 


1859]  AT  CHICAGO  197 

Senate  by  Mr.  Crittenden  which  proposed  that 
the  pro-slavery  Lecompton  constitution  should 
be  left  to  a  vote  to  be  taken  in  Kansas,  and  if  it 
and  slavery  were  adopted,  Kansas  should  be  at 
once  admitted  as  a  slave  State.  That  same 
measure  was  introduced  into  the  House  by  Mr. 
Montgomery,  and  therefore  got  the  name  of  the 
Crittenden-Montgomery  bill ;  and  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  the  Republicans  all  voted  for 
it  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they 
found  themselves  placed.  You  may  remember 
also  that  the  New  York  Tribune,  which  was  so 
much  in  favor  of  our  electing  Judge  Douglas  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  has  not  yet  got 
through  the  task  of  defending  the  Republican 
party,  after  that  one  vote  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, from  the  charge  of  having  gone  over 
to  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty.  Now, 
how  long  would  the  New  York  Tribune  have 
been  in  getting  rid  of  the  charge  that  the  Re- 
publicans had  abandoned  their  principles,  if  we 
had  taken  up  Judge  Douglas,  adopted  all  his 
doctrines,  and  elected  him  to  the  Senate,  when 
the  single  vote  upon  that  one  point  so  confused 
and  embarrassed  the  position  of  the  Republicans 
that  it  has  kept  them  for  one  entire  year  arguing 
against  the  effect  of  it  ? 

This  much  being  said  on  that  point,  I  wish 
now  to  add  a  word  that  has  a  bearing  on  the 
future.  The  Republican  principle,  the  profound 
central  truth  that  slavery  is  wrong  and  ought  to 
be  dealt  with  as  a  wrong, — though  we  are  always 
to  remember  the  fact  of  its  actual  existence 
amongst  us  and  faithfully  observe  all  the  con- 
stitutional guarantees, — the  unalterable  principle 
never  for  a  moment  to  be  lost  sight  of,  that  it  is 


198  SPEECHES  [Mar.  i 

a  wrong  and  ought  to  be  dealt  with  as  such,  can- 
not advance  at  all  upon  Judge  Douglas's  ground ; 
that  there  is  a  portion  of  the  country  in  which 
slavery  must  always  exist;  that  he  does  not  care 
whether  it  is  voted  up  or  voted  down,  as  it  is 
simply  a  question  of  dollars  and  cents.  When- 
ever in  any  compromise,  or  arrangement,  or  com- 
bination that  may  promise  some  temporary  ad- 
vantage we  are  led  upon  that  ground,  then  and 
there  the  great  living  principle  upon  which  we 
have  organized  as  a  party  is  surrendered.  The 
proposition  now  in  our  minds  that  this  thing  is 
wrong  being  once  driven  out  and  surrendered, 
then  the  institution  of  slavery  necessarily  be- 
comes national. 

One  or  two  words  more  of  what  I  did  not 
think  of  when  I  rose.  Suppose  it  is  true  that  the 
Almighty  has  drawn  a  line  across  this  continent, 
on  the  south  side  of  which  part  of  the  people  will 
hold  the  rest  as  slaves ;  that  the  Almighty 
ordered  this ;  that  it  is  right,  unchangeably  right, 
that  men  ought  there  to  be  held  as  slaves ;  that 
their  fellow-men  will  always  have  the  right  to 
hold  them  as  slaves.*     I  ask  you,  this  once  ad- 

*  Lincoln  here  refers  to  sentiments  that  had  been  ex- 
pressed by  Senator  Douglas,  in  a  Southern  tour  made 
after  his  election.  In  a  speech  at  Memphis,  in  December, 
1858,  Douglas  declared :  "Whenever  a  territory  has  a 
climate,  soil,  and  production,  making  it  the  interest  of 
the  inhabitants  to  encourage  slave  property,  they  will 
have  a  slave  code,"  and  where  conditions  are  unfavorable 
for  slavery  they  will  prohibit  it.  The  Almighty,  he  said, 
had  drawn  a  line  on  this  continent,  on  the  one  side  of 
which  the  soil  must  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor ;  on  the 
other  by  white  labor.  That  line  did  not  run  inflexibly 
along  the  parallel  of  36°  30',  the  artificial  boundary  once 
established  by  law  [m  the  Missouri  Compromise'\,  but 
meandered  through  the  border  States  and  Territories, 
where  the  self-interest  of  the  inhabitants  formed  the 
natural   means  for  its  determination. 


1859]  AT  CHICAGO  199 

mitted,  how  can  you  believe  that  it  is  not  right  for 
us,  or  for  them-  coming  here,  to  hold  slaves  on 
this  other  side  of  the  line?     Once  we  come  to 
ackiaowledge  that  it  is  right,  that  it  is  the  law  of 
the  Eternal  Being  for  slavery  to  exist  on  one  side 
of  that  line,  have  we  any  sure  ground  to  object 
to  slaves  being  held  on  the  other  side?     Once 
admit  the  position  that  a  man  rightfully  holds 
another  man  as  property  on  one  side  of  the  line, 
and  you  must,  when  it  suits  his  convenience  to 
come  to  the  other  side,  admit  that  he  has  the 
same  right  to  hold  his  property  there.     Once  ad- 
mit Judge  Douglas's  proposition,  and  we  must 
all  finally  give  way.    Although  we  may  not  bring 
ourselves  to  the  idea  that  it  is  to  our  interest  to 
have  slaves  in  this  Northern  country,  we  shall 
soon  bring  ourselves  to  admit  that  while  we  may 
not  want  them,  if  any  one  else  does,  he  has  the 
moral  right  to  have  them.     Step  by  step,  south 
of  the  judge's  moral  climate  Hne  in  the  States, 
in  the  Territories  everywhere,  and  then  in  all  the 
States — it  is  thus  that  Judge  Douglas  would  lead 
us   inevitably  to  the   nationalization   of  slavery. 
Whether  by  his  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereignty, 
or  by  the  ground  taken  by  him  in  his   recent 
speech  in  Memphis  and  through  the  South, — that 
wherever  the  climate  makes  it  the  interest  of  the 
inhabitants  to  encourage  slave  property  they  will 
pass  a  slave  code, — whether  it  is  covertly  nation- 
alized by  congressional  legislation,  or  by  Dred 
Scott  decision,  or  by  the  sophistical  and  mislead- 
ing doctrine  he  has  last  advanced,  the  same  goal 
is  inevitably  reached  by  the  one  or  the  other  de- 
vice.    It  is  only  traveling  to  the  same  place  by 
different  roads. 

It  is  in  this  direction  lies  all  the  danger  that 


200 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 


now  exists  to  the  great  Republican  cause.  I  take 
it  that  so  far  as  concerns  forcibly  establishing 
slavery  in  the  Territories  by  congressional  legis- 
lation, or  by  virtue  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
that  day  has  passed.  Our  only  serious  danger 
is  that  we  shall  be  led  upon  this  ground  of  Judge 
Douglas,  on  the  delusive  assumption  that  it  is  a 
good  way  of  whipping  our  opponents,  when  in 
fact  it  is  a  way  that  leads  straight  to  final  sur- 
render. The  Republican  party  should  not  dally 
with  Judge  Douglas  when  it  knows  where  his 
proposition  and  his  leadership  would  take  us, 
nor  be  disposed  to  listen  to  it  because  it  was  best 
somewhere  else  to  support  somebody  occupying 
his  ground.  That  is  no  just  reason  why  we 
ought  to  go  over  to  Judge  Douglas,  as  we  were 
called  upon  to  do  last  year.  Never  forget  that 
we  have  before  us  this  whole  matter  of  the  right 
or  wrong  of  slavery  in  this  Union,  though  the 
immediate  question  is  as  to  its  spreading  out 
into  new  Territories  and  States. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood  upon  this 
subject  of  slavery  in  this  country.  I  suppose  it 
may  long  exist ;  and  perhaps  the  best  way  for  it 
to  come  to  an  end  peaceably  is  for  it  to  exist  for 
a  length  of  time.  But  I  say  that  the  spread  and 
strengthening  and  perpetuation  of  it  are  an  en- 
tirely different  proposition.  There  we  should  in 
every  way  resist  it  as  a  wrong,  treating  it  as  a 
wrong,  with  the  fixed  idea  that  it  must  and  will 
come  to  an  end.  If  we  do  not  allow  ourselves 
to  be  allured  from  the  strict  path  of  our  duty  by 
such  a  device  as  shifting  our  ground  and  throw- 
ing us  into  the  rear  of  a  leader  who  denies  our 
first  principle,  denies  that  there  is  an  absolute 
wrong   in   the   institution   of   slavery,   then   the 


i859]  AT  COLUMBUS  201 

future  of  the  Republican  cause  is  safe,  and  vic- 
tor\'  is  assured.  You  Republicans  of  Illinois 
have  deliberately  taken  your  ground ;  you  have 
heard  the  whole  subject  discussed  again  and 
again ;  you  have  stated  your  faith  in  platforms 
laid  down  in  a  State  convention  and  in  a  national 
convention ;  you  have  heard  and  talked  over  and 
considered  it  until  you  are  now  all  of  opinion 
that  you  are  on  a  ground  of  unquestionable  right. 
All  you  have  to  do  is  to  keep  the  faith,  to  remain 
steadfast  to  the  right,  to  stand  by  your  banner. 
Nothing  should  lead  you  to  leave  your  guns. 
Stand  together,  ready,  with  match  in  hand. 
Allow  nothing  to  turn  you  to  the  right  or  to  the 
left.  Remember  how  long  you  have  been  in  set- 
ting out  on  the  true  course ;  how  long  you  have 
been  in  getting  your  neighbors  to  understand  and 
believe  as  you  now  do.  Stand  by  your  principles, 
stand  by  your  guns,  and  victory,  complete  and 
permanent,  is  sure  at  the  last. 

Douglas's  "Popular  Sovereignty"  the  Mask  o£ 
Nationalized  Slavery. 

Speech  at  Columbus.  Ohio.     September   16, 

1859. 

FcUozi.'- citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio:  I  cannot 
fail  to  remember  that  I  appear  for  the  first  time 
before  an  audience  in  this  now  great  State — an 
audience  that  is  accustomed  to  hear  such  speakers 
as  Corwin.  and  Chase,  and  Wade,  and  many 
other  renowned  men ;  and  remembering  this.  I 
feel  that  it  will  be  well  for  you.  as  for  me.  that 
you  should  not  raise  your  expectations  to  that 
standard  to  which  you  would  have  been  justified 


202 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  1 6 


in  raising  them  had  one  of  these  distinguished 
men  appeared  before  you.  You  would  perhaps 
be  only  preparing  a  disappointment  for  your- 
selves, and,  as  a  consequence  of  your  disappoint- 
ment, mortification  to  me.  I  hope,  therefore, 
that  you  will  commence  with  very  moderate  ex- 
pectations ;  and  perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me  your 
attention,  I  shall  be  able  to  interest  you  to  a 
moderate  degree. 

Appearing  here  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I 
have  been  somewhat  embarrassed  for  a  topic  by 
way  of  introduction  to  my  speech ;  but  I  have 
been  relieved  from  that  embarrassment  by  an 
introduction  which  the  Ohio  Statesman  news- 
paper gave  me  this  morning.  In  this  paper  I 
have  read  an  article  in  which,  among  other 
statements,  I  find  the  following : 

In  debating  with  Senator  Douglas  during  the  memo- 
rable contest  last  fall,  Mr.  Lincoln  declared  in  favor  of 
negro  suffrage,  and  attempted  to  defend  that  vile  con- 
ception against  the  Little  Giant. 

I  mention  this  now,  at  the  opening  of  my  re- 
marks, for  the  purpose  of  making  three  com- 
ments upon  it.  The  first  I  have  already  an- 
nounced— it  furnished  me  an  introductory  topic; 
the  second  is  to  show  that  the  gentleman  is  mis- 
taken; thirdly,  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to 
correct  it. 

In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  this  matter 
being  a  mistake.  I  have  found  that  it  is  not  en- 
tirely safe,  when  one  is  misrepresented  under  his 
very  nose,  to  allow  the  misrepresentation  to  go 
uncontradicted.  I  therefore  propose,  here  at  the 
outset,  not  only  to  say  that  this  is  a  misrepresen- 
tation, but  to  show  conclusively  that  it  is  so ;  and 
you  v/ill  bear  with  me  while  I  read  a  couple  of 


1859]  AT  COLUMBUS  203 

extracts  from  that  very  "memorable"  debate 
with  Judge  Douglas  last  year,  to  which  this 
newspaper  refers.  In  the  first  pitched  battle 
which  Senator  Douglas  and  myself  had,  at  the 
town  of  Ottawa,  I  used  the  language  which  I  will 
now  read.  Having  been  previously  reading  an 
extract,  I  continued  as  follows : 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater 
length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have 
ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the 
black  race.  This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  anything  that 
argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and  political 
equality  with  the  negro  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic 
arrangement  of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a 
horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say  here, 
while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose  either 
directly  or  indirectly  to  interfere  with  the  institution 
of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination 
to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  political 
and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black 
races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  two 
which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever  forbid 
their  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect 
equality,  and  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that 
there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas, 
am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the 
superior  position.  I  have  never  said  anything  to  the 
contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not 
entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumerated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  the  right  to  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much 
entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with  Judge 
Douglas,  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many  respects — cer- 
tainly not  in  color,  perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellec- 
tual endowments.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread, 
without  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand 
earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas, 
and  the  equal  of  every  living  man. 

Upon  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  the  reason 
for  making  a  statement  like  thi-s  recurred,  I  said : 


204 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 


While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day  an  elderly  gentle- 
man called  upon  me  to  know  whether  I  was  really  in 
favor    of    producing    a    perfect    equality    between    the 
negroes  and  white  people     While  I  had  not  proposed 
to  myself  on  this  occasion  to  say  much  on  that  sub- 
ject,  yet  as  the   question  was  asked  me   I   thought   I 
would   occupy  perhaps   five   minutes   in   saying   some- 
thing in  regard  to  it.     I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not, 
nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any 
way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and 
the  black  races — that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in 
favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,   nor  of 
qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with 
white  people;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this,  that 
there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  the 
black  races,   which,   I  believe,   will   forever  forbid  the 
two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  politi- 
cal  equality.     And   inasmuch   as   they  cannot   so   live, 
while    they    do    remain    together    there    must    be    the 
position  of  superior  and  inferior,   and  I,  as  much  as 
any   other   man,   am   in   favor   of   having  the   superior 
position  assigned  to  the  white  race.     I  say  upon  this 
occasion  I  do  not  perceive  that  because  the  white  man 
is  to  have  the  superior  position,  the  negro  should  be 
denied  everything.     I  do  not  understand  that  because 
I   do   not   want   a  negro   woman   for   a  slave,    I   must 
necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.     My  understanding  is 
that  I  can  just  let  her  alone.     I  am  now  in  my  fiftieth 
year;  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black  woman 
for  either  a  slave  or  a  wife.     So  it  seems  to  me  quite 
possible   for   us   to   get   along   without   making   either 
slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.     I  will  add  to  this,  that  I 
have  never  seen  to  my  knowledge  a  man,  woman,  or 
child  who  was  in  favor  of  producing  a  perfect  equality, 
social  and  political,  between  negroes  and  white  men. 
I  recollect  of  but  one  distinguished  instance  that  I  ever 
heard  of  so  frequently  as  to  be  entirely  satisfied  of  its 
correctness — and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's 
old  friend,   Colonel  Richard  M.  Johnson.     I  will  also 
add  to  the  remarks  I  have  made  (for  I  am  not  going  to 
enter   at   large   upon  this   subject),  that   I   have  never 
had  the  least  apprehension  that  I  or  my  friends  would 
marry  negroes,  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them  from 
it;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  seem  to  be  in 
great  apprehension  that  they  might,  if  there  were  no 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  205 

law  to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn 
pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last  stand  by  the  law  of 
the  State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of  white  people 
with  negroes. 

There,  my  friends,  you  have  briefly  what  I 
have,  upon  former  occasions,  said  upon  the  sub- 
ject to  which  this  newspaper,  to  the  extent  of  its 
ability,  has  drawn  the  pubHc  attention.  In  it 
you  not  only  perceive,  as  a  probabihty,  that  in 
that  contest  I  did  not  at  any  time  say  I  was  in 
favor  of  negro  suffrage;  but  the  absolute  proof 
that  twice — once  substantially  and  once  ex- 
pressly— I  declared  against  it.  Having  shown 
you  this,  there  remains  but  a  word  of  comment 
upon  that  newspaper  article.  It  is  this :  that  I 
presume  the  editor  of  that  paper  is  an  honest 
and  truth-loving  man,  and  that  he  will  be  greatly 
obliged  to  me  for  furnishing  him  thus  early  an 
opportunity  to  correct  the  misrepresentation  he 
has  made,  before  it  has  run  so  long  that  mali- 
cious people  can  call  him  a  liar. 

The  giant  himself  has  been  here  recently.  I 
have  seen  a  brief  report  of  his  speech.  If  it 
were  otherwise  unpleasant  to  me  to  introduce  the 
subject  of  the  negro  as  a  topic  for  discussion,  I 
might  be  somewhat  relieved  by  the  fact  that  he 
dealt  exclusively  in  that  subject  while  he  was 
here.  I  shall,  therefore,  without  much  hesita- 
tion or  diffidence,  enter  upon  this  subject. 

The  American  people,  on  the  first  day  of  Janu- 
ary, 1854,  found  the  African  slave-trade  pro- 
hibited by  a  law  of  Congress.  In  a  majority  of 
the  States  of  this  Union,  they  found  African 
slavery,  or  any  other  sort  of  slavery,  prohibited 
by  State  constitutions.  They  also  found  a  law 
existing,  supposed  to  be  valid,  by  which  slavery 


206 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  1 6 


was  excluded  from  almost  all  the  territory  the 
United  States  then  owned.  This  was  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country,  with  reference  to  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery,  on  the  first  of  January,  1854.  A 
few  days  after  that,  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
Congress,  which  ran  through  its  regular  course 
in  the  two  branches  of  the  national  legislature, 
and  finally  passed  into  a  law  in  the  month  of 
May,  by  which  the  act  of  Congress  prohibiting 
slavery  from  going  into  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States  was  repealed.  In  connection  with 
the  law  itself,  and,  in  fact,  in  the  terms  of  the 
law,  the  then  existing  prohibition  was  not  only 
repealed,  but  there  was  a  declaration  of  a  pur- 
pose on  the  part  of  Congress  never  thereafter  to 
exercise  any  power  that  they  might  have,  real  or 
supposed,  to  prohibit  the  extension  or  spread  of 
slavery.  This  was  a  very  great  change ;  for  the 
law  thus  repealed  was  of  more  than  thirty  years' 
standing.  Following  rapidly  upon  the  heels  of 
this  action  of  Congress,  a  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  is  made,  by  which  it  is  declared  that 
Congress,  if  it  desires  to  prohibit  the  spread  of 
slavery  into  the  Territories,  has  no  constitutional 
power  to  do  so.  Not  only  so,  but  that  decision 
lays  down  principles,  which,  if  pushed  to  their 
logical  conclusion, — I  say  pushed  to  their  logical 
conclusion, — would  decide  that  the  constitutions 
of  free  States,  forbidding  slavery,  are  them- 
selves unconstitutional.  Mark  me,  I  do  not  say 
the  judges  said  this,  and  let  no  man  say  I  affirm 
the  judges  used  these  words ;  but  I  only  say  it  is 
my  opinion  that  what  they  did  say,  if  pressed  to 
its  logical  conclusion,  will  inevitably  result  thus. 
Looking  at  these  things,  the  Republican  party, 
as  I  understand  its  principles  and  policy,  believes 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  207 

that  there  is  great  danger  of  the  institution  of 
slavery  being  spread  out  and  extended,  until  it  is 
ultimately  made  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States  of 
this  Union ;  so  believing,  to  prevent  that  in- 
cidental and  ultim.ate  consummation  is  the 
original  and  chief  purpose  of  the  Republican 
organization.  I  say  "chief  purpose"  of  the 
Republican  organization ;  for  it  is  certainly  true 
that  if  the  national  house  shall  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  Republicans,  they  will  have  to  attend  to 
all  the  other  matters  of  national  house-keeping 
as  well  as  this.  The  chief  and  real  purpose  of 
the  Republican  party  is  eminently  conservative. 
It  proposes  nothing  save  and  except  to  restore 
this  government  to  its  original  tone  in  regard  to 
this  element  of  slavery,  and  there  to  maintain  it, 
looking  for  no  further  change  in  reference  to  it 
than  that  which  the  original  framers  of  the 
government  themselves  expected  and  looked  for- 
ward to. 

The  chief  danger  to  this  purpose  of  the  Re- 
publican party  is  not  just  now  the  revival  of  the 
African  slave-trade,  or  the  passage  of  a  con- 
gressional slave-code,  or  the  declaring  of  a 
second  Dred  Scott  decision,  making  slavery  law- 
ful in  all  the  States.  These  are  not  pressing  us 
just  now.  They  are  not  quite  ready  yet.  The 
authors  of  these  measures  know  that  we  are  too 
strong  for  them ;  but  they  will  be  upon  us  in  due 
time,  and  we  will  be  grappling  with  them  hand 
to  hand,  if  they  are  not  now  headed  off.  They 
are  not  now  the  chief  danger  to  the  purpose  of 
the  RepubHcan  organization;  but  the  most 
imminent  danger  that  now  threatens  that  pur- 
pose is  that  insidious  Douglas  popular  sover- 
eignty.    This  is  the  miner  and  sapper.     While  it 


2o8 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  16 


does  not  propose  to  revive  the  African  slave- 
trade,  nor  to  pass  a  slave-code,  nor  to  make  a 
second  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is  preparing  us  for 
the  onslaught  and  charge  of  these  ultimate 
enemies  when  they  shall  be  ready  to  come  on, 
and  the  word  of  command  for  them  to  advance 
shall  be  given.  I  say  this  Douglas  popular 
sovereignty — for  there  is  a  broad  distinction,  as 
I  now  understand  it,  between  that  article  and  a 
genuine  popular  sovereignty. 

I  believe  there  is  a  genuine  popular  sover- 
eignty. I  think  a  definition  of  genuine  popular 
sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would  be  about  this : 
That  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he  pleases 
with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  ex- 
clusively concern  him.  Applied  to  government, 
this  principle  would  be,  that  a  general  govern- 
ment shall  do  all  those  things  which  pertain  to  it, 
and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do  precisely 
as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which 
exclusively  concern  them.  I  understand  that 
this  government  of  the  United  States,  under 
which  we  live,  is  based  upon  this  principle ;  and  I 
am  misunderstood  if  it  is  supposed  that  I  have 
any  war  to  make  upon  that  principle. 

Now,  what  is  Judge  Douglas's  popular  sover- 
eignty? It  is,  as  a  principle,  no  other  than  that 
if  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave  of  another 
man,  neither  that  other  man  nor  anybody  else 
has  a  right  to  object.  Applied  in  government, 
as  he  seeks  to  apply  it,  it  is  this :  If,  in  a  new 
Territory  into  which  a  few  people  are  beginning 
to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making  their  homes, 
they  choose  to  either  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits  or  to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or 
the  other  may  affect  the  persons  to  be  enslaved, 


1859]  AT  COLUMBUS  209 

or  the  infinitely  greater  number  of  persons  who 
are  afterward  to  inhabit  that  Territory,  or  the 
other  members  of  the  famihes  of  communities, 
of  which  they  are  but  an  incipient  member,  or 
the  general  head  of  the  family  of  States  as  parent 
of  all — however  their  action  may  affect  one  or 
the  other  of  these,  there  is  no  power  or  right  to 
interfere.  That  is  Douglas's  popular  sover- 
eignty applied. 

He  has  a  good  deal  of  trouble  with  popular 
sovereignty.  His  explanations  explanatory  of 
explanations  explained  are  interminable.  The 
most  lengthy  and,  as  I  suppose,  the  most  ma- 
turely considered  of  his  long  series  of  explana- 
tions is  his  great  essay  in  Harper's  Magazine. 
I  will  not  attempt  to  enter  on  any  very  thorough 
investigation  of  his  argument  as  there  made  and 
presented.  I  will  nevertheless  occupy  a  good 
portion  of  your  time  here  in  drawing  your  at- 
tention to  certain  points  in  it.  Such  of  you  as 
may  have  read  this  document  will  have  perceived 
that  the  judge,  early  in  the  document,  quotes 
from  two  persons  as  belonging  to  the  Republican 
party,  without  naming  them,  but  who  can  readily 
be  recognized  as  being  Governor  Seward,  of 
New  York,  and  myself.  It  is  true  that  exactly 
fifteen  months  ago  this  day,  I  believe,  I  for  the 
first  time  expressed  a  sentiment  upon  this  subject, 
and  in  such  a  manner  that  it  should  get  into 
print,  that  the  public  might  see  it  beyond  the 
circle  of  my  hearers,  and  my  expression  of  it  at 
that  time  is  the  quotation  that  Judge  Douglas 
makes.  He  has  not  made  the  quotation  with 
accuracy,  but  justice  to  him  requires  me  to  say 
that  it  is  sufficiently  accurate  not  to  change  its 
sense. 


2IO  SPEECHES  [Sept.  i5 

The  sense  of  that  quotation  condensed  is  this 
— that  this  slavery  element  is  a  durable  element 
of  discord  among  us,  and  that  we  shall  probably 
not  have  perfect  peace  in  this  country  with  it 
until  it  either  masters  the  free  principle  in  our 
government,  or  is  so  far  mastered  by  the  free 
principle  as  for  the  public  mind  to  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  going  to  its  end.  That  sentiment 
which  I  now  express  in  this  way  was,  at  no  great 
distance  of  time,  perhaps  in  different  language, 
aHd  in  connection  with  some  collateral  ideas, 
expressed  by  Governor  Seward.  Judge  Douglas 
has  been  so  much  annoyed  by  the  expression  of 
that  sentiment  that  he  has  constantly,  I  believe, 
in  almost  all  his  speeches  since  it  was  uttered, 
been  referring  to  it.  I  find  he  alluded  to  it  in 
his  speech  here,  as  well  as  in  the  copyright  essay. 
I  do  not  now  enter  upon  this  for  the  purpose  of 
making  an  elaborate  argument  to  show  that  we 
were  right  in  the  expression  of  that  sentiment. 
I  only  ask  your  attention  to  this  matter  for  the 
purpose  of  making  one  or  two  points  upon  it. 

If  you  will  read  the  copyright  essay,  you  will 
discover  that  Judge  Douglas  himself  says  a  con- 
troversy between  the  American  colonies  and  the 
government  of  Great  Britain  began  on  the 
slavery  question  in  1699,  and  continued  from 
that  time  until  the  Revolution ;  and,  while  he  did 
not  say  so,  we  all  know  that  it  has  continued  with 
more  or  less  violence  ever  since  the  Revolu- 
tion. 

Then  we  need  not  appeal  to  history,  to  the 
declaration  of  the  framers  of  the  government, 
but  we  know  from  Judge  Douglas  himself  that 
slavery  began  to  be  an  element  of  discord  among 
the  white  people  of  this  country  as  far  back  as 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS 


211 


1699,  or  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  ago,  or 
five  generations  of  men — counting  thirty  years 
to  a  generation.  Now  it  would  seem  to  me  that 
it  might  have  occurred  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  to 
anybody  who  had  turned  his  attention  to  these 
facts,  that  there  was  something  in  the  nature  of 
that  thing,  slavery,  som.ewhat  durable  for  mis- 
chief and  discord. 

There  is  another  point  I  desire  to  make  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter  before  I  leave  it.  From  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  down  to  1820  is  the 
precise  period  of  our  history  when  we  had  com- 
parative peace  upon  this  question — the  precise 
period  of  time  when  we  came  nearer  to  having 
peace  about  it  than  any  other  time  of  that  entire 
one  hundred  and  sixty  years,  in  which  he  says 
it  began,  or  of  the  eighty  years  of  our  own  Con- 
stitution. Then  it  would  be  worth  our  while  to 
stop  and  examine  into  the  probable  reason  of  our 
coming  nearer  to  having  peace  then  than  at  any 
other  time.  This  was  the  precise  period  of  time 
in  which  our  fathers  adopted,  and  during  which 
they  followed,  a  policy  restricting  the  spread  of 
slavery,  and  the  whole  Union  was  acquiescing  in 
it.  The  whole  country  looked  forward  to  the 
ultimate  extinction  of  the  institution.  It  was 
when  a  policy  had  been  adopted  and  was  pre- 
vailing, which  led  all  just  and  right-minded  men 
to  suppose  that  slavery  was  gradually  coming 
to  an  end,  and  that  they  might  be  quiet  about  it, 
watching  it  as  it  expired.  I  think  Judge  Douglas 
might  have  perceived  that  too,  and,  whether  he 
did  or  not,  it  is  worth  the  attention  of  fair-minded 
men,  here  and  elsewhere,  to  consider  whether 
that  is  not  the  truth  of  the  case.  If  he  had 
looked  at  these  two  facts,  that  this  matter  has 


212  SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 

been  an  element  of  discord  for  one  hundred  and 
sixty  years  among  this  people,  and  that  the  only 
comparative  peace  we  have  had  about  it  was 
when  that  policy  prevailed  in  this  government, 
which  he  now  wars  upon,  he  might  then,  per- 
haps, have  been  brought  to  a  more  just  apprecia- 
tion of  what  I  said  fifteen  months  ago — that  ''a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I 
believe  this  government  cannot  endure  per- 
manently half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  ex- 
pect the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect 
the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to 
be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where 
the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in 
the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward,  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South."  That  was  my  sentiment  at 
that  time.  In  connection  with  it  I  said,  "We 
are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy 
was  initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  con- 
fident promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agita- 
tion. Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that 
agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  con- 
stantly augmented."  I  now  say  to  you  here 
that  we  are  advanced  still  farther  into  the  sixth 
year  since  that  policy  of  Judge  Douglas — that 
popular  sovereignty  of  his  for  quieting  the 
slavery  question — was  made  the  national  policy. 
Fifteen  months  more  have  been  added  since  I 
uttered  that  sentiment,  and  I  call  upon  you,  and 
all  other  right-minded  men,  to  say  whether  those 
fifteen  months  have  belied  or  corroborated  my 
words. 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  213 

While  I  am  here  upon  this  subject,  I  cannot 
but  express  gratitude  that  the  true  view  of  this 
element  of  discord  among  us — as  I  believe  it  is — 
is  attracting  more  and  more  attention.  I  do  not 
believe  that  Governor  Seward  uttered  that  senti- 
ment because  I  had  done  so  before,  but  because 
he  reflected  upon  this  subject,  and  saw  the  truth 
of  it.  Nor  do  I  believe,  because  Governor 
Seward  or  I  uttered  it,  that  Mr.  Hickman,  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  different  language,  since  that 
time,  has  declared  his  belief  in  the  utter  antag- 
onism which  exists  between  the  principles  of 
liberty  and  slavery.  You  see  we  are  multiply- 
ing. Now,  while  I  am  speaking  of  Hickman,  let 
me  say,  I  know  but  little  about  him.  I  have 
never  seen  him,  and  know  scarcely  anything 
about  the  man ;  but  I  will  say  this  much  about 
him :  Of  all  the  anti-Lecompton  Democracy  that 
have  been  brought  to  my  notice,  he  alone  has  the 
true,  genuine  ring  of  the  metal.  And  now, 
without  indorsing  anything  else  he  has  said.  I 
will  ask  this  audience  to  give  three  cheers  for 
Hickman.  [The  audience  responded  with  three 
rousing  cheers  for  Hickman.^ 

Another  point  in  the  copyright  essay  to  which 
I  would  ask  your  attention  is  rather  a  feature  to 
be  extracted  from  the  whole  thing,  than  from 
any  express  declaration  of  it  at  any  point.  It  is 
a  general  feature  of  that  document,  and  indeed, 
of  all  of  Judge  Douglas's  discussions  of  this 
question,  that  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  and  the  States  of  this  Union  are  exactly 
alike — that  there  is  no  difference  between  them 
at  all — that  the  Constitution  applies  to  the  Ter- 
ritories precisely  as  it  does  to  the  States — and 
that  the  United  States  Government,  under  the 


214 


SPEECHES  [Sept  i5 


Constitution,  may  not  do  in  a  State  what  it  may 
not  do  in  a  Territory,  and  what  it  must  do  in  a 
State,  it  must  do  in  a  Territory.  Gentlemen,  is 
that  a  true  view  of  the  case  ?  It  is  necessary  for 
this  squatter  sovereignty;  but  is  it  true? 

Let  us  consider.  What  does  it  depend  upon? 
It  depends  altogether  upon  the  proposition  that 
the  States  must,  without  the  interference  of  the 
General  Government,  do  all  those  things  that 
pertain  exclusively  to  themselves — that  are  local 
in  their  nature,  that  have  no  connection  with  the 
General  Government.  After  Judge  Douglas  has 
established  this  proposition,  which  nobody  dis- 
putes or  ever  has  disputed,  he  proceeds  to  as- 
sume, without  proving  it,  that  slavery  is  one  of 
those  little,  unimportant,  trivial  matters,  which 
are  of  just  about  as  much  consequence  as  the 
question  would  be  to  me  whether  my  neighbor 
should  raise  horned  cattle  or  plant  tobacco ;  that 
there  is  no  moral  question  about  it,  but  that  it  is 
altogether  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents ;  that 
when  a  new  Territory  is  opened  for  settlement, 
the  first  man  who  goes  into  it  may  plant  there  a 
thing  which,  like  the  Canada  thistle,  or  some 
other  of  those  pests  of  the  soil,  cannot  be  dug 
out  by  the  millions  of  men  who  will  come  there- 
after; that  it  is  one  of  those  little  things  that  is 
so  trivial  in  its  nature  that  it  has  no  effect  upon 
anybody  save  the  few  men  who  first  plant  upon 
the  soil;  that  it  is  not  a  thing  which  in  any  way 
affects  the  family  of  communities  composing 
these  States,  nor  any  way  endangers  the  General 
Government.  Judge  Douglas  ignores  altogether 
the  very  well-known  fact  that  we  have  never  had 
a  serious  menace  to  our  political  existence, 
except    it    sprang    from    this    thing,    which    he 


1859]  AT  COLUi.IBUS 


215 


chooses  to  regard  as  only  upon  a  par  with  onions 
and  potatoes. 

Turn  it,  and  contemplate  it  in  another  view. 
He  says  that,  according  to  his  popular  sover- 
eignty, the  General  Government  may  give  to  the 
Territories  governors,  judges,  marshals,  secre- 
taries, and  all  the  other  chief  men  to  govern 
them,  but  they  must  not  touch  upon  this  other 
question.  Why?  The  question  of  who  shall  be 
governor  of  a  Territory  for  a  year  or  two,  and 
pass  away,  without  his  track  being  left  upon  the 
soil,  or  an  act  which  he  did  for  good  or  for  evil 
being  left  behind,  is  a  question  of  vast  national 
magnitude.  It  is  so  much  opposed  in  its  nature 
to  locality  that  the  nation  itself  must  decide  it ; 
while  this  other  matter  of  planting  slavery  upon 
a  soil — a  thing  which,  once  planted,  cannot  be 
eradicated  by  the  succeeding  millions  who  have 
as  much  right  there  as  the  first  comers,  or  if  erad- 
icated, not  without  infinite  difficulty  and  a  long 
struggle — he  considers  the  power  to  prohibit  it 
as  one  of  these  little,  local,  trivial  things  that  the 
nation  ought  not  to  say  a  word  about;  that  it 
affects  nobody  save  the  few  men  who  are 
there. 

Take  these  two  things  and  consider  them  to- 
gether, present  the  question  of  planting  a  State 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  by  the  side  of  a 
question  of  who  shall  be  governor  of  Kansas  for 
a  year  or  two,  and  is  there  a  man  here — is  there 
a  man  on  earth — who  would  not  say  the  gov- 
ernor question  is  the  little  one,  and  the  slavery 
question  is  the  great  one?  I  ask  any  honest 
Democrat  if  the  small,  the  local,  and  the  trivial 
and  temporary  question  is  not,  Who  shall  be 
governor? — while    the    durable,    the    important 


2i6  SPEECHES  [Sept  i6 

and  the  mischievous  one  is,   Shall  this   soil  be 
planted  with  slavery? 

This  is  an  idea,  I  suppose,  which  has  arisen  in 
Judge  Douglas's  mind  from  his  peculiar  struc- 
ture. I  suppose  the  institution  of  slavery  really 
looks  small  to  him.  He  is  so  put  up  by  nature 
that  a  lash  upon  his  back  would  hurt  him,  but  a 
lash  upon  anybody  else's  back  does  not  hurt  him. 
That  is  the  build  of  the  man,  and  consequently 
he  looks  upon  the  matter  of  slavery  in  this  unim- 
portant light. 

Judge  Douglas  ought  to  remember,  when  he  is 
endeavoring  to  force  this  policy  upon  the  Amer- 
ican people,  that  while  he  is  put  up  in  that  way, 
a  good  many  are  not.  He  ought  to  remember 
that  there  was  once  in  this  country  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Thomas  Jefiferson,  supposed  to  be  a 
Democrat — a  man  whose  principles  and  policy 
are  not  very  prevalent  amongst  Democrats  to- 
day, it  is  true ;  but  that  man  did  not  take  exactly 
this  view  of  the  insignificance  of  the  element  of 
slavery  which  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  does. 
In  contemplation  of  this  thing,  we  all  know  he 
was  led  to  exclaim,  *T  tremble  for  my  country 
when  I  remember  that  God  is  just!"  We  know 
how  he  looked  upon  it  when  he  thus  expressed 
himself.  There  was  danger  to  this  country, 
danger  of  the  avenging  justice  of  God,  in  that  lit- 
tle unimportant  popular-sovereignty  question  of 
Judge  Douglas.  He  supposed  there  was  a  ques- 
tion of  God's  eternal  justice  wrapped  up  in  the 
enslaving  of  any  race  of  men,  or  any  man,  and 
that  those  who  did  so  braved  the  arm  of  Jehovah 
— that  when  a  nation  thus  dared  the  Almighty, 
every  friend  of  that  nation  had  cause  to  dread 
his   wrath.      Choose  ye  between   Jefferson   and 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  217 

Douglas  as  to  what  is  the  true  view  of  this  ele- 
ment among  us. 

There  is  another  little  difficulty  about  this 
matter  of  treating  the  Territories  and  States 
alike  in  all  things,  to  which  I  ask  your  attention, 
and  I  shall  leave  this  branch  of  the  case.  If 
there  is  no  difference  between  them,  why  not 
make  the  Territories  States  at  once?  What  is 
the  reason  that  Kansas  was  not  fit  to  come  into 
the  Union  when  it  was  organized  into  a  Terri- 
tory, in  Judge  Douglas's  view  ?  Can  any  of  you 
tell  any  reason  why  it  should  not  have  come  into 
the  Union  at  once?  They  are  fit,  as  he  thinks, 
to  decide  upon  the  slavery  question — the  largest 
and  most  important  with  which  they  could  possi- 
bly deal ;  what  could  they  do  by  coming  into  the 
Union  that  they  are  not  fit  to  do,  according  to  his 
view,  by  staying  out  of  it?  Oh,  they  are  not  fit 
to  sit  in  Congress  and  decide  upon  the  rates  of 
postage,  or  questions  of  ad  valorem  or  specific 
duties  on  foreign  goods,  or  live-oak  timber  con- 
tracts ;  they  are  not  fit  to  decide  these  vastly  im- 
portant matters,  which  are  national  in  their  im- 
port, but  they  are  fit,  "from  the  jump,"  to  decide 
this  little  negro  question.  But,  gentlemen,  the 
case  is  too  plain ;  I  occupy  too  much  time  on  this 
head,  and  I  pass  on. 

Near  the  close  of  the  copyright  essay,  the 
judge,  I  think,  comes  very  near  kicking  his  own 
fat  into  the  fire.  I  did  not  think  when  I  com- 
menced these  remarks  that  I  would  read  from 
that  article,  but  I  now  believe  I  will : 

This  exposition  of  the  history  of  these  measures 
shows  conclusively  that  the  authors  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of 
1854,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  Continental  Con- 


2i8  SPEECHES  [Sept  i6 

gress  in  1774,  and  the  founders  of  our  system  of 
government  subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  regarded 
the  people  of  the  Territories  and  Colonies  as  political 
communities  which  were  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclu- 
sive power  of  legislation  in  their  provincial  legislatures, 
where  their  representation  could  alone  be  preserved, 
in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity. 

When  the  judge  saw  that  putting  in  the  word 
"slavery"  would  contradict  his  own  history,  he 
put  in  what  he  knew  would  pass  as  synonymous 
with  it — "internal  polity."  Whenever  we  find 
that  in  one  of  his  speeches,  the  substitute  is  used 
in  this  manner;  and  I  can  tell  you  the  reason. 
It  would  be  too  bald  a  contradiction  to  say 
slavery,  but  "internal  polity"  is  a  general  phrase 
which  would  pass  in  some  quarters,  and  which 
he  hopes  will  pass  with  the  reading  community, 
for  the  same  thing. 

This  right  pertains  to  the  people  collectively,  as  a 
law-abiding  and  peaceful  community,  and  not  to  the 
isolated  individuals  who  may  wander  upon  the  public 
domain  in  violation  of  law.  It  can  only  be  exercised 
where  there  are  inhabitants  sufficient  to  constitute  a 
government,  and  capable  of  performing  its  various 
functions  and  duties,  a  fact  to  be  ascertained  and  de- 
termined by 

Whom  do  you  think?  Judge  Douglas  says,  "By 
Congress." 

Whether  the  number  shall  be  fixed  at  ten,  fifteen,  or 
twenty  thousand  inhabitants  does  not  affect  the 
principle. 

Now  I  have  only  a  few  comments  to  make. 
Popular  sovereignty,  by  his  own  words,  does  not 
pertain  to  the  few  persons  who  wander  upon  the 
public  domain  in  violation  of  law.  We  have  his 
words  for  that.  When  it  does  pertain  to  them 
is  when  they  are  sufficient  to  be  formed  into  an 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  219 

organized  political  community,  and  he  fixes  the 
minimum  for  that  at  10,000,  and  the  maximum 
at  20,000.  Now  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  to 
be  done  with  the  9,000?  Are  they  all  to  be 
treated,  until  they  are  large  enough  to  be  or- 
ganized into  a  political  community,  as  wanderers 
upon  the  public  land  in  violation  of  law?  And 
if  so  treated  and  driven  out,  at  what  point  of 
time  would  there  ever  be  ten  thousand  ?  If  they 
were  not  driven  out,  but  remained  there  as  tres- 
passers upon  the  public  land  in  violation  of  the 
law,  can  they  establish  slavery  there  ?  No ;  the 
judge  says  popular  sovereignty  don't  pertain  to 
them  then.  Can  they  exclude  it  then  ?  No ; 
popular  sovereignty  don't  pertain  to  them  then. 
I  would  like  to  know,  in  the  case  covered  by  the 
essay,  what  condition  the  people  of  the  Territory 
are  in  before  they  reach  the  number  of  ten 
thousand  ? 

But  the  main  point  I  wish  to  ask  attention  to  is 
that  the  question  as  to  when  they  shall  have 
reached  a  sufficient  number  to  be  formed  into  a 
regular  organized  community  is  to  be  decided 
*'by  Congress."  Judge  Douglas  says  so.  Well, 
gentlemen,  that  is  about  all  we  want.  No;  that 
is  all  the  Southerners  want.  That  is  what  all 
those  who  are  for  slavery  want.  They  do  not 
want  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  from  coming 
into  the  new  Territories,  and  they  do  not  want 
popular  sovereignty  to  hinder  it ;  and  as  Con- 
gress is  to  say  when  they  are  ready  to  be  or- 
ganized, all  that  the  South  has  to  do  is  to  get 
Congress  to  hold  off.  Let  Congress  hold  off 
until  they  are  ready  to  be  admitted  as  a  State, 
and  the  South  has  all  it  wants  in  taking  slavery 
into  and  planting  it  in  all  the  Territories  that  we 


2  20  SPEECHES  [Sept.  16 

now  have,  or  hereafter  may  have.  In  a  word, 
the  whole  thing,  at  a  dash  of  the  pen,  is  at  last 
put  in  the  power  of  Congress ;  for  if  they  do  not 
have  this  popular  sovereignty  until  Congress 
organizes  them,  I  ask  if  it  at  last  does  not  come 
from  Congress?  If,  at  last,  it  amounts  to  any- 
thing at  all.  Congress  gives  it  to  them.  I  submit 
this  rather  for  your  reflection  than  for  comment. 
After  all  that  is  said,  at  last,  by  a  dash  of  the  pen, 
everything  that  has  gone  before  is  undone,  and 
he  puts  the  whole  question  under  the  control  of 
Congress.  After  fighting  through  more  than 
three  hours,  if  you  will  undertake  to  read  it,  he 
at  last  places  the  whole  matter  under  the  control 
of  that  power  which  he  had  been  contending 
against,  and  arrives  at  a  result  directly  contrary 
to  what  he  had  been  laboring  to  do.  He  at  last 
leaves  the  whole  matter  to  the  control  of 
Congress. 

There  are  two  main  objects,  as  I  understand 
it,  of  this  Harper's  Magazine  essay.  One  was 
to  show,  if  possible,  that  the  men  of  our  Revolu- 
tionary times  were  in  favor  of  his  popular 
sovereignty;  and  the  other  was  to  show  that  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  had  not  entirely  squelched 
out  this  popular  sovereignty.  I  do  not  propose, 
in  regard  to  this  argument  drawn  from  the  his- 
tory of  former  times,  to  enter  into  a  detailed  ex- 
amination of  the  historical  statements  he  has 
made.  I  have  the  impression  that  they  are  inac- 
curate in  a  great  many  instances ;  sometimes  in 
positive  statement,  but  very  much  more  inaccu- 
rate by  the  suppression  of  statements  that  really 
belong  to  the  history.  But  I  do  not  propose  to 
affirm  that  this  is  so  to  any  very  great  extent,  or 
to  enter  into  a  very  minute  examination  of  his 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  221 

historical  statement.  I  avoid  doing  so  upon 
this  principle — that  if  it  were  important  for  me 
to  pass  out  of  this  lot  in  the  least  period  of  time 
possible,  and  I  came  to  that  fence  and  saw  by  a 
calculation  of  my  own  strength  and  agility  that 
I  could  clear  it  at  a  bound,  it  would  be  folly  for 
me  to  stop  and  consider  whether  I  could  or  could 
not  crawl  through  a  crack.  So  I  say  of  the 
whole  history  contained  in  his  essay,  where  he 
endeavored  to  link  the  men  of  the  Revolution  to 
popular  sovereignty.  It  only  requires  an  effort 
to  leap  out  of  it — a  single  bound  to  be  entirely 
successful.  If  you  read  it  over  you  will  find  that 
he  quotes  here  and  there  from  documents  of  the 
Revolutionary  times,  tending  to  show  that  the 
people  of  the  colonies  were  desirous  of  regulat- 
ing their  own  concerns  in  their  own  way,  that 
the  British  Government  should  not  interfere; 
that  at  one  time  they  struggled  with  the  British 
Government  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  the 
African  slave-trade;  if  not  directly,  to  be  per- 
mitted to  exclude  it  indirectly  by  taxation 
sufficient  to  discourage  and  destroy  it.  From 
these  and  many  things  of  this  sort.  Judge 
Douglas  argues  that  they  were  in  favor  of  the 
people  of  our  own  Territories  excluding  slavery 
if  they  wanted  to,  or  planting  it  there  if  they 
wanted  to,  doing  just  as  they  pleased  from  the 
time  they  settled  upon  the  Territory.  Now, 
however  his  history  may  apply,  and  whatever  of 
his  argument  there  may  be  that  is  sound  and 
accurate  or  unsound  and  inaccurate,  if  we  can 
find  out  what  these  men  did  themselves  do  upon 
this  very  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
does  it  not  end  the  whole  thing?  If,  after  all 
this  labor  and  effort  to  show  that  the  men  of  the 


222  SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 

Revolution  were  in  favor  of  his  popular  sover- 
eignty and  his  mode  of  dealing  with  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  we  can  show  that  these  very  men 
took  hold  of  that  subject,  and  dealt  with  it,  we 
can  see  for  ourselves  how  they  dealt  with  it.  It 
is  not  a  matter  of  argument  or  inference,  but  we 
know  what  they  thought  about  it. 

It  is  precisely  upon  that  part  of  the  history  of 
the  country  that  one  important  omission  is  made 
by  Judge  Douglas.  He  selects  parts  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  United  States  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery,  and  treats  it  as  the  whole,  omitting  from 
his  historical  sketch  the  legislation  of  Congress 
in  regard  to  the  admission  of  Missouri,  by  which 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  established,  and 
slavery  excluded  from  a  country  half  as  large  as 
the  present  United  States.  All  this  is  left  out 
of  his  history,  and  in  no  wise  alluded  to  by  him, 
so  far  as  I  can  remember,  save  once,  when  he 
makes  a  remark,  that  upon  his  principle  the 
Supreme  Court  was  authorized  to  pronounce  a 
decision  that  the  act  called  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise was  unconstitutional.  All  that  history 
has  been  left  out.  But  this  part  of  the  history 
of  the  country  was  not  made  by  the  men  of  the 
Revolution. 

There  was  another  part  of  our  political  history 
made  by  the  very  men  who  were  the  actors  in 
the  Revolution,  which  has  taken  the  name  of  the 
ordinance  of  '87.  Let  me  bring  that  history  to 
your  attention.  In  1784,  I  believe,  this  same 
Mr.  Jefferson  drew  up  an  ordinance  for  the 
government  of  the  country  upon  which  we  now 
stand ;  or  rather  a  frame  or  draft  of  an  ordinance 
for  the  government  of  this  country,  here  in  Ohio, 
our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  us  who  live  in  Illinois, 


1859]  AT  COLUMBUS  223 

and  our  neighbors  in  Wisconsin  and  Michigan. 
In  that  ordinance,  drawn  up  not  only  for  the 
government  of  that  Territory,  but  for  the  Ter- 
ritories south  of  the  Ohio  River,  Mr.  Jefferson 
expressly  provided  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery. 
Judge  Douglas  says,  and  perhaps  he  is  right, 
that  that  provision  was  lost  from  that  ordinance. 
I  believe  that  is  true.  When  the  vote  was  taken 
upon  it,  a  majority  of  all  present  in  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  voted  for  it ;  but  there  were 
so  many  absentees  that  those  voting  for  it  did  not 
make  the  clear  majority  necessary,  and  it  was 
lost.  But  three  years  after  that  the  Congress  of 
the  Confederation  were  together  again,  and  they 
adopted  a  new  ordinance  for  the  government  of 
this  Northwest  Territory,  not  contemplating  ter- 
ritory south  of  the  river,  for  the  States  owning 
that  territory  had  hitherto  refrained  from  giving 
it  to  the  General  Government ;  hence  they  made 
the  ordinance  to  apply  only  to  what  the  govern- 
ment owned.  In  that,  the  provision  excluding 
slavery  was  inserted  and  passed  unanimously,  or 
at  any  rate  it  passed  and  became  a  part  of  the 
law  of  the  land.  Under  that  ordinance  we  live. 
First,  here,  in  Ohio,  you  were  a  Territory,  then 
an  enabling  act  was  passed,  authorizing  you  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  pro- 
vided it  was  Republican,  and  not  in  conflict  with 
the  ordinance  of  '87.  When  you  framed  your 
constitution  and  presented  it  for  admission,  I 
think  you  will  find  the  legislation  upon  the  sub- 
ject will  show  that,  ** whereas  you  had  formed  a 
constitution  that  was  Republican,  and  not  in 
conflict  with  the  ordinance  of  '87,"  therefore  you 
were  admitted  upon  equal  footing  with  the  orig- 
inal States.     The  same  process  in  a  few  years 


224  SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 

was  gone  through  with  Indiana,  and  so  with 
TlHnois,  and  the  same  substantially  with  Michigan 
and  Wisconsin. 

Not  only  did  that  ordinance  prevail,  but  it  was 
constantly  looked  to  whenever  a  step  was  taken 
by  a  new  Territory  to  become  a  State.  Con- 
gress always  turned  their  attention  to  it,  and  in 
all  their  movements  upon  this  subject  they  traced 
their  course  by  that  ordinance  of  '^y.  When 
they  admitted  new  States  they  advertised  them 
of  this  ordinance  as  a  part  of  the  legislation  of 
the  country.  They  did  so  because  they  had 
traced  the  ordinance  of  '^y  throughout  the  his- 
tory of  this  country.  Begin  with  the  men  of  the 
Revolution,  and  go  down  for  sixty  entire  years, 
and  until  the  last  scrap  of  that  Territory  comes 
into  the  Union  in  the  form  of  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin, everything  was  made  to  conform  to  the 
ordinance  of  '87,  excluding  slavery  from  that 
vast  extent  of  country. 

I  omitted  to  mention  in  the  right  place  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  in  process 
of  being  framed  when  that  ordinance  was  made 
by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation;  and  one 
of  the  first  acts  of  Congress  itself,  under  the  new 
Constitution  itself,  was  to  give  force  to  that 
ordinance  by  putting  power  to  carry  it  out  into 
the  hands  of  new  officers  under  the  Constitution, 
in  the  place  of  the  old  ones,  who  had  been  legis- 
lated out  of  existence  by  the  change  in  the 
government  from  the  Confederation  to  the  Con- 
stitution. Not  only  so,  but  I  believe  Indiana 
once  or  twice,  if  not  Ohio,  petitioned  the  General 
Government  for  the  privilege  of  suspending  that 
provision  and  allowing  them  to  have  slaves.  A 
report  made  by  Mr.  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  him- 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  225 

self  a  slaveholder,  was  directly  against  it,  and 
the  action  was  to  refuse  them  the  privilege  of 
violating  the  ordinance  of  '87. 

This  period  of  history,  which  I  have  run  over 
briefly,  is,  I  presume,  as  familiar  to  most  of  this 
assembly  as  any  other  part  of  the  history  of  our 
country.  I  suppose  that  few  of  my  hearers  are 
not  as  familiar  with  that  part  of  history  as  I  am^ 
and  I  only  mention  it  to  recall  your  attention  to 
it  at  this  time.  And  hence  I  ask  how  extraor- 
dinary a  thing  it  is  that  a  man  who  has  occu- 
pied a  position  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  who  is  now  in  his  third  term, 
and  who  looks  to  see  the  government  of  this 
whole  country  fall  into  his  own  hands,  pretend- 
ing to  give  a  truthful  and  accurate  history  of  the 
slavery  question  in  this  country,  should  so  en- 
tirely ignore  the  whole  of  that  portion  of  our 
history — the  most  important  of  all.  Is  it  not  a 
most  extraordinary  spectacle,  that  a  man  should 
stand  up  and  ask  for  any  confidence  in  his  state- 
ments, who  sets  out  as  he  does  with  portions  of 
history,  calling  upon  the  people  to  believe  that  it 
is  a  true  and  fair  representation,  when  the  lead- 
ing part  and  controlling  feature  of  the  whole 
history  is  carefully  suppressed? 

But  the  mere  leaving  out  is  not  the  most  re- 
markable feature  of  this  most  remarkable  essay. 
His  proposition  is  to  establish  that  the  leading 
men  of  the  Revolution  were  for  his  great  prin- 
ciple of  non-intervention  by  the  government  in 
the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories ;  while 
history  shows  that  they  decided  in  the  cases 
actually  brought  before  them  in  exactly  the  con- 
trary way,  and  he  knows  it.  Not  only  did  they 
so  decide  at  that  time,  but  they  stuck  to  it  during 


226  SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 

sixty  years,  through  thick  and  thin,  as  long  as 
there  was  one  of  the  Revolutionary  heroes  upon 
the  stage  of  political  action.  Through  their 
whole  course,  from  first  to  last,  they  clung  to 
freedom.  And  now  he  asks  the  community  to 
believe  that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  were  in 
favor  of  his  great  principle,  when  we  have  the 
naked  history  that  they  themselves  dealt  with 
this  very  subject-matter  of  his  principle,  and 
utterly  repudiated  his  principle,  acting  upon  a 
precisely  contrary  ground.  It  is  as  impudent  and 
absurd  as  if  a  prosecuting  attorney  should  stand 
up  before  a  jury,  and  ask  them  to  convict  A  as 
the  murderer  of  B,  while  B  was  walking  alive 
before  them. 

I  say  again,  if  Judge  Douglas  asserts  that  the 
men  of  the  Revolution  acted  upon  principles  by 
which,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves,  they 
ought  to  have  adopted  his  popular  sovereignty, 
then,  upon  a  consideration  of  his  own  argu- 
ment, he  had  a  right  to  make  you  believe  that 
they  understood  the  principles  of  government, 
but  misapplied  them — that  he  has  arisen  to  en- 
lighten the  world  as  to  the  just  application  of  this 
principle.  He  has  a  right  to  try  to  persuade  you 
that  he  understands  their  principles  better  than 
they  did,  and  therefore  he  wall  apply  them  now, 
not  as  they  did,  but  as  they  ought  to  have  done. 
He  has  a  right  to  go  before  the  community,  and 
try  to  convince  them  of  this ;  but  he  has  no  right 
to  attempt  to  impose  upon  any  one  the  belief  that 
these  men  themselves  approved  of  his  great  prin- 
ciple. There  are  two  ways  of  establishing  a 
proposition.  One  is  by  trying  to  demonstrate  it 
upon  reason,  and  the  other  is,  to  show  that  great 
men  in  former  times  have  thought  so  and  so,  and 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  227 

thus  to  pass  it  by  the  weight  of  pure  authority. 
Now,  if  Judge  Douglas  will  demonstrate  some- 
how that  this  is  popular  sovereignty — the  right 
of  one  man  to  make  a  slave  of  another,  without 
any  right  in  that  other,  or  any  one  else,  to  object, 
— demonstrate  it  asEudid  demonstrated  proposi- 
tions,— there  is  no  objection.  But  when  he 
comes  forward,  seeking  to  carry  a  principle  by 
bringing  to  it  the  authority  of  men  who  them- 
selves utterly  repudiated  that  principle,  I  ask 
that  he  shall  not  be  permitted  to  do  it. 

I  see,  in  the  judge's  speech  here,  a  short  sen- 
tence in  these  words :  ''Our  fathers,  when  they 
formed  this  government  under  which  we  live, 
understood  this  question  just  as  well  and  even 
better  than  we  do  now."  That  is  true ;  I  stick  to 
that.  I  will  stand  by  Judge  Douglas  in  that  to 
the  bitter  end.  And  now.  Judge  Douglas,  come 
and  stand  by  me,  and  truthfully  show  how  they 
acted,  understanding  it  better  than  we  do.  All  I 
ask  of  you,  Judge  Douglas,  is  to  stick  to  the 
proposition  that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  un- 
derstood this  subject  better  than  we  do  now,  and 
with  that  better  understanding  they  acted  better 
than  you  are  trying  to  act  now. 

I  wish  to  say  something  now  in  regard  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  as  dealt  with  by  Judge 
Douglas.  In  that  "memorable  debate"  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  last  year,  the  judge 
thought  fit  to  commence  a  process  of  catechizing 
me,  and  at  Freeport  I  answered  his  questions, 
and  propounded  some  to  him.  Among  others 
propounded  to  him  was  one  that  I  have  here 
now.  The  substance,  as  I  remember  it,  is :  "Can 
the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  under 
the   Dred    Scott   decision,   in   any   lawful   way, 


228  SPEECHES  [Sept.  xS 

against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits,  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  State  constitution?"  He  an- 
swered that  they  could  lawfully  exclude  slavery 
from  the  United  States  Territories,  notwith- 
standing the  Dred  Scott  decision.  There  was 
something  about  that  answer  that  has  probably 
been  a  trouble  to  the  judge  ever  since. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  expressly  gives  every 
citizen  of  the  United  States  a  right  to  carry  his 
slaves  into  the  United  States  Territories.  And 
now  there  was  some  inconsistency  in  saying  that 
the  decision  was  right,  and  saying,  too,  that  the 
people  of  the  Territory  could  lawfully  drive 
slavery  out  again.  When  all  the  trash,  the 
words,  the  collateral  matter,  was  cleared  away 
from  it, — all  the  chaff  was  fanned  out  of  it, — it 
was  a  bare  absurdity:  no  less  than  that  a  thing 
may  be  lawfully  driven  away  from  where  it  has 
a  lawful  right  to  be.  Clear  it  of  all  the  verbiage, 
and  that  is  the  naked  truth  of  his  proposition — 
that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven  from  the 
place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  stay.  Well, 
it  was  because  the  judge  couldn't  help  seeing  this 
that  he  has  had  so  much  trouble  with  it;  and 
what  I  want  to  ask  your  especial  attention  to, 
just  now,  is  to  remind  you,  if  you  have  not 
noticed  the  fact,  that  the  judge  does  not  any 
longer  say  that  the  people  can  exclude  slavery. 
He  does  not  say  so  in  the  copyright  essay;  he 
did  not  say  so  in  the  speech  that  he  made  here; 
and,  so  far  as  I  know,  since  his  reelection  to  the 
Senate,  he  has  never  said,  as  he  did  at  Freeport, 
that  the  people  of  the  Territories  can  exclude 
slavery.  He  desires  that  you,  who  wish  the 
Territories  to  remain  free,  should  believe  that  he 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  229 

stands  by  that  position,  but  he  does  not  say  it 
himself.  He  escapes,  to  some  extent,  the  absurd 
position  I  have  stated  by  changing  his  language 
entirely.  What  he  says  now  is  something  dif- 
ferent in  language,  and  we  will  consider  whether 
it  is  not  different  in  sense  too.  It  is  now  that 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  or  rather  the  Constitu- 
tion under  that  decision,  does  not  carry  slavery 
into  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  of  the  Territories  to  control  it  as  other 
property.  He  does  not  say  the  people  can  drive 
it  out,  but  they  can  control  it  as  other  property. 
The  language  is  different;  we  should  consider 
whether  the  sense  is  different.  Driving  a  horse 
out  of  this  lot  is  too  plain  a  proposition  to  be 
mistaken  about  it;  it  is  putting  him  on  the  other 
side  of  the  fence.  Or  it  might  be  a  sort  of  ex- 
clusion of  him  from  the  lot  if  you  were  to  kill 
him  and  let  the  worms  devour  him ;  but  neither 
of  these  things  is  the  same  as  **controUing  him  as 
other  property."  That  would  be  to  feed  him,  to 
pamper  him,  to  ride  him,  to  use  and  abuse  him, 
to  make  the  most  money  out  of  him,  ''as  other 
property ;"  but,  please  you,  what  do  the  men  who 
are  in  favor  of  slavery  want  more  than  this? 
What  do  they  really  want,  other  than  that 
slavery,  being  in  the  Territories,  shall  be  con- 
trolled as  other  property? 

If  they  want  anything  else,  I  do  not  compre- 
hend it.  I  ask  your  attention  to  this,  first,  for  the 
purpose  of  pointing  out  the  change  of  ground 
the  judge  has  made ;  and,  in  the  second  place, 
the  importance  of  the  change — that  that  change 
is  not  such  as  to  give  you  gentlemen  who  want 
his  popular  sovereignty  the  power  to  exclude 
the  institution  or  drive  it  out  at  all.     I  know  the 


230 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  16 


judge  sometimes  squints  at  the  argument  that  in 
controlHng  it  as  other  property  by  unfriendly 
legislation  they  may  control  it  to  death,  as  you 
might  in  the  case  of  a  horse,  perhaps,  feed  him 
so  lightly  and  ride  him  so  much  that  he  would 
die.  But  when  you  come  to  legislative  control, 
there  is  something  more  to  be  attended  to.  I 
have  no  doubt,  myself,  that  if  the  Territories 
should  undertake  to  control  slave  property  as 
other  property — that  is,  control  it  in  such  a  way 
that  it  would  be  the  most  valuable  as  property, 
and  make  it  bear  its  just  proportion  in  the  way  of 
burdens  as  property, — really  deal  with  it  as 
property, — the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  will  say,  ''God  speed  you,  and  amen." 
But  I  undertake  to  give  the  opinion,  at  least,  that 
if  the  Territories  attempt  by  any  direct  legisla- 
tion to  drive  the  man  with  his  slave  out  of  the 
Territory,  or  to  decide  that  his  slave  is  free  be- 
cause of  his  being  taken  in  there,  or  to  tax  him 
to  such  an  extent  that  he  cannot  keep  him  there, 
the  Supreme  Court  will  unhesitatingly  decide  all 
such  legislation  unconstitutional,  as  long  as  that 
Supreme  Court  is  constructed  as  the  Dred  Scott 
Supreme  Court  is.  The  first  two  things  they 
have  already  decided,  except  that  there  is  a  little 
quibble  among  lawyers  between  the  words  dicta 
and  decision.  They  have  already  decided  that  a 
negro  cannot  be  made  free  by  territorial  legisla- 
tion. 

What  is  that  Dred  Scott  decision?  Judge 
Douglas  labors  to  show  that  it  is  one  thing,  while 
I  think  it  is  altogether  different.  It  is  a  long 
opinion,  but  it  is  all  embodied  in  this  short  state- 
ment :  ''The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
forbids  Congress  to  deprive  a  man  of  his  property 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  231 

without  due  process  of  law ;  the  right  of  property 
in  slaves  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in 
that  Constitution ;  therefore  if  Congress  shall 
undertake  to  say  that  a  man's  slave  is  no  longer 
his  slave  when  he  crosses  a  certain  line  into  a 
Territory,  that  is  depriving  him  of  his  property 
without  due  process  of  law,  and  is  unconstitu- 
tional." There  is  the  whole  Dred  Scott  decision. 
They  add  that  if  Congress  cannot  do  so  itself. 
Congress  cannot  confer  any  power  to  do  so,  and 
hence  any  effort  by  the  territorial  legislature  to 
do  either  of  these  things  is  absolutely  decided 
against.  It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  by  that 
court. 

Now,  as  to  this  indirect  mode  by  ''unfriendly 
legislation,"  all  lawyers  here  will  readily  under- 
stand that  such  a  proposition  cannot  be  tolerated 
for  a  moment,  because  a  legislature  cannot  in- 
directly do  that  which  it  cannot  accomplish 
directly.  Then  I  say  any  legislation  to  control 
this'  property,  as  property,  for  its  benefit  as 
property,  would  be  hailed  by  this  Dred  Scott  Su- 
preme Court,  and  fully  sustained ;  but  any  legis- 
lation driving  slave  property  out,  or  destroying 
it  as  property,  directly  or  indirectly,  will  most 
assuredly  by  that  court  be  held  unconstitutional. 

Judge  Douglas  says  that  if  the  Constitution 
carries  slavery  into  the  Territories,  beyond  the 
power  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  control 
it  as  other  property,  then  it  follows  logically  that 
every  one  who  swears  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  must  give  that  support 
to  that  property  which  it  needs.  And  if  the  Con- 
stitution carries  slavery  into  the  Territories  be- 
yond the  power  of  the  people  to  control  it  as 
other  property,  then  it  also  carries   it  into  the 


232 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 


States,  because  the  Constitution  is  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  it  were  not 
for  my  excessive  modesty  I  would  say  that  I  told 
that  very  thing  to  Judge  Douglas  quite  a  year 
ago.  This  argument  is  here  in  print,  and  if  it 
were  not  for  my  modesty,  as  I  said,  I  might  call 
your  attention  to  it.  If  you  read  it,  you  will  find 
that  I  not  only  made  that  argument,  but  made  it 
better  than  he  has  made  it  since. 

There  is,  however,  this  difTference.  I  say  now, 
and  said  then,  there  is  no  sort  of  question  that 
the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  it  is  the 
right  of  the  slaveholder  to  take  his  slave  and 
hold  him  in  the  Territory;  and,  saying  this. 
Judge  Douglas  himself  admits  the  conclusion. 
He  says  if  that  is  so,  this  consequence  will  fol- 
low ;  and  because  this  consequence  would  follow, 
his  argument  is,  the  decision  cannot  therefore  be 
that  way — ''that  would  spoil  my  popular  sov- 
ereignty, and  it  cannot  be  possible  that  this  great 
principle  has  been  squelched  out  in  this  extraor- 
dinary way.  It  might  be,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
extraordinary  consequences  of  spoiling  my  hum- 
bug." 

Another  feature  of  the  Judges  argument 
about  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  an  effort  to  show 
that  that  decision  deals  altogether  in  declara- 
tions of  negatives ;  that  the  Constitution  does  not 
affirm  anything  as  expounded  by  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  but  it  only  declares  a  want  of  power,  a 
total  absence  of  power,  in  reference  to  the  Ter- 
ritories. It  seems  to  be  his  purpose  to  make  the 
whole  of  that  decision  to  result  in  a  mere  nega- 
tive declaration  of  a  want  of  power  in  Congress 
to  do  anything  in  relation  to  this  matter  in  the 
Territories.     I  know  the  opinion  of  the  judges 


i859]  AT  COLUMBUS  233 

states  that  there  is  a  total  absence  of  power ;  but 
that  is,  unfortunately,  not  all  it  states ;  for  the 
judges  add  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is 
distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  does  not  stop  at  saying  that  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  recognized  in  the  Con- 
stitution, is  declared  to  exist  somewhere  in  the 
Constitution,  but  says  it  is  affirmed  in  the  Con- 
stitution. Its  language  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  it  is  embodied  and  so  woven  into  that  in- 
strument that  it  cannot  be  detached  without 
breaking  the  Constitution  itself, — in  a  word,  it  is 
a  part  of  the  Constitution. 

Douglas  is  singularly  unfortunate  in  his  effort 
to  make  out  that  decision  to  be  altogether  nega- 
tive, when  the  express  language  at  the  vital  part 
is  that  this  is  distinctly  affirmed  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. I  think  m^yself,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that 
this  decision  does  not  merely  carry  slavery  into 
the  Territories,  but  by  its  logical  conclusion  it 
carries  it  into  the  States  in  which  we  live.  One 
provision  of  that  Constitution  is,  that  it  shall  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land, — I  do  not  quote 
the  language, — any  constitution  or  law  of  any 
State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  This 
Dred  Scott  decision  says  that  the  right  of  prop- 
erty in  a  slave  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution 
which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  State 
constitution  or  law  notwithstanding.  Then  I 
say  that  to  destroy  a  thing  which  is  distinctly 
affirmed  and  supported  by  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  even  by  a  State  constitution  or  law,  is 
a  violation  of  that  supreme  law,  and  there  is  no 
escape  from  it.  In  my  judgment  there  is  no 
avoiding  that  result,  save  that  the  American  peo- 
ple shall  see  that  State  constitutions  are  better 


234 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  i6 


construed  than  our  Constitution  is  construed  in 
that  decision.  They  must  take  care  that  it  is 
more  faithfully  and  truly  carried  out  than  it  is 
there  expounded. 

I  m.ust  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Near  the  be- 
ginning of  my  remarks  I  said  that  this  insidious 
Douglas  popular  sovereignty  is  the  measure  that 
now  threatens  the  purpose  of  the  Republican 
party  to  prevent  slavery  from  being  nationalized 
in  the  United  States.  I  propose  to  ask  your  at- 
tention for  a  little  while  to  some  propositions  in 
affirmance  of  that  statement.  Take  it  just  as  it 
stands,  and  apply  it  as  a  principle;  extend  and 
apply  that  principle  elsewhere,  and  consider 
where  it  will  lead  you.  I  now  put  this  proposi- 
tion, that  Judge  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty 
applied  will  reopen  the  African  slave-trade ;  and 
I  will  demonstrate  it  by  any  variety  of  ways  in 
which  you  can  turn  the  subject  or  look  at  it. 

The  judge  says  that  the  people  of  the  Ter- 
ritories have  the  right,  by  his  principle,  to  have 
slaves  if  they  want  them.  Then  I  say  that  the 
people  in  Georgia  have  the  right  to  buy  slaves  in 
Africa  if  they  want  them,  and  I  defy  any  man  on 
earth  to  show  any  distinction  between  the  two 
things — to  show  that  the  one  is  either  more 
wicked  or  more  unlawful ;  to  show,  on  original 
principles,  that  one  is  better  or  worse  than  the 
other;  or  to  show  by  the  Constitution  that  one 
differs  a  whit  from  the  other.  He  will  tell  me, 
doubtless,  that  there  is  no  constitutional  pro- 
vision against  people  taking  slaves  into  the  new 
Territories,  and  I  tell  him  that  there  is  equally 
no  constitutional  provision  against  buying  slaves 
in  Africa.  He  will  tell  you  that  a  people  in  the 
exercise  of  popular  sovereignty  ought  to  do  as 


1859]  AT  COLUMBUS  235 

they  please  about  that  thing,  and  have  slaves  if 
they  want  them;  and  I  tell  you  that  the  people 
of  Georgia  are  as  much  entitled  to  popular 
sovereignty,  and  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  they 
want  them,  as  the  people  of  a  Territory  are  to 
have  slaves  if  they  want  them.  I  ask  any  man, 
dealing  honestly  with  himself,  to  point  out  a 
distinction. 

I  have  recently  seen  a  letter  of  Judge  Doug- 
las's, in  which,  without  stating  that  to  be  the 
object,  he  doubtless  endeavors  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  two.  He  says  he  is  unal- 
terably opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against 
the  African  slave-trade.  And  why?  He  then 
seeks  to  give  a  reason  that  would  not  apply  to  his 
popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories.  What  is 
that  reason?  *'The  abolition  of  the  African 
slavfi-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution." 
I  deny  it.  There  is  no  truth  in  the  proposition 
that  the  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade  is  a 
compromise  of  the  Constitution.  No  man  can 
put  his  finger  on  anything  in  the  Constitution,  or 
on  the  line  of  history,  which  shows  it.  It  is  a 
mere  barren  assertion,  made  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  up  a  distinction  between  the  re- 
vival of  the  African  slave-trade  and  his  "great 
principle." 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  adopted  it  was  expected  that  the 
slave-trade  would  be  abolished.  I  should  assert, 
and  insist  upon  that,  if  Judge  Douglas  denied  it. 
But  I  know  that  it  was  equally  expected  that 
slavery  would  be  excluded  from  the  Territories, 
and  I  can  show  by  history  that  in  regard  to  these 
two  things  public  opinion .  was  exactly  alike, 
while   in   regard   to   positive   action,   there   was 


236  SPEECHES  [Sept.  16 

more  done  in  the  ordinance  of  '87  to  resist  the 
spread  of  slavery  than  was  ever  done  to  abolish 
the  foreign  slave-trade.  Lest  1  be  misunder- 
stood, I  say  again  that  at  the  time  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  public  expectation  was 
that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished,  but  no 
more  so  than  that  the  spread  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories  should  be  restrained.  They  stand 
alike,  except  that  in  the  ordinance  of  '87  there 
was  a  mark  left  by  public  opinion,  showing  that 
it  was  more  committed  against  the  spread  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories  than  against  the  foreign 
slave-trade. 

Compromise !  What  word  of  compromise 
was  there  about  it?  Why,  the  public  sense  was 
then  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade; 
but  there  was  at  the  time  a  very  great  com- 
mercial interest  involved  in  it,  and  extensive 
capital  in  that  branch  of  trade.  There  were 
doubtless  the  incipient  stages  of  improvement  in 
the  South  in  the  way  of  farming,  dependent  on 
the  slave-trade,  and  they  made  a  proposition  to 
Congress  to  abolish  the  trade  after  allowing  it 
twenty  years,  a  sufficient  time  for  the  capital  and 
commerce  engaged  in  it  to  be  transferred  to 
other  channels.  They  made  no  provision  that  it 
should  be  abolished  in  twenty  years ;  I  do  not 
doubt  that  they  expected  it  would  be ;  but  they 
made  no  bargain  about  it.  The  public  sentiment 
left  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  any  that  it  would  be 
done  away.  I  repeat,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
history  of  those  times  in  favor  of  that  matter 
being  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  It  was 
the  public  expectation  at  the  time,  manifested  in 
a  thousand  ways,  that  the  spread  of  slavery 
should  also  be  restricted. 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  237 

Then  I  say  if  this  principle  is  estabHshed,  that 
there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery,  and  whoever  wants 
it  has  a  right  to  have  it;  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
dollars  and  cents ;  a  sort  of  question  as  to  how 
they  shall  deal  with  brutes ;  that  between  us  and 
the  negro  here  there  is  no  sort  of  question,  but 
that  at  the  South  the  question  is  between  the 
negro  and  the  crocodile ;  that  it  is  a  mere  matter 
of  policy;  that  there  is  a  perfect  right,  according 
to  interest,  to  do  just  as  you  please — when  this  is 
done,  where  this  doctrine  prevails,  the  miners 
and  sappers  will  have  formed  public  opinion  for 
the  slave-trade.  They  will  be  ready  for  Jeff 
Davis  and  Stephens,  and  other  leaders  of  that 
company,  to  sound  the  bugle  for  the  revival  of 
the  slave-trade,  for  the  second  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision, for  the  flood  of  slavery  to  be  poured  over 
the  free  States,  while  we  shall  be  here  tied  down 
and  helpless,  and  run  over  like  sheep. 

It  is  to  be  a  part  and  parcel  of  this  same  idea 
to  say  to  men  who  want  to  adhere  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  who  have  always  belonged  to  that 
party,  and  are  only  looking  about  for  some  ex- 
cuse to  stick  to  it,  but  nevertheless  hate  slavery, 
that  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  is  as  good  a 
way  as  any  to  oppose  slavery.  They  allow  them- 
selves to  be  persuaded  easily,  in  accordance  with 
their  previous  dispositions,  into  this  belief,  that 
it  is  about  as  good  a  way  of  opposing  slavery  as 
any,  and  we  can  do  that  without  straining  our 
old  party  ties  or  breaking  up  old  political  asso- 
ciations. We  can  do  so  without  being  called 
negro-worshipers.  We  can  do  that  without 
being  subjected  to  the  gibes  and  sneers  that  are 
so  readily  thrown  out  in  place  of  argument 
where  no  argument  can  be  found.     So  let  us 


238  SPEECHES  rSept.  16 

stick  to  this  popular  sovereignty — ^this  insidious 
popular  sovereignty.  Now  let  me  call  your  at- 
tention to  one  thing  that  has  really  happened, 
which  shows  this  gradual  and  steady  debauching 
of  public  opinion,  this  course  of  preparation  for 
the  revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  territorial 
slave-code,  and  the  new  Dred  Scott  decision  that 
is  to  carry  slavery  into  the  free  States.  Did  you 
ever,  five  years  ago,  hear  of  anybody  in  the 
world  saying  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in  the 
Declaration  of  National  Independence ;  that  it 
did  not  mean  negroes  at  all,  and  when  ''all  men'* 
were  spoken  of  negroes  were  not  included  ? 

I  am  satisfied  that  five  years  ago  that  proposi- 
tion was  not  put  upon  paper  by  any  living  being 
anywhere.  I  have  been  unable  at  any  time  to 
find  a  man  in  an  audience  who  would  declare 
that  he  had  ever  known  of  anybody  saying  so 
five  years  ago.  But  last  year  there  was  not  a 
''Douglas  popular  sovereignty"  man  in  Illinois 
who  did  not  say  it.  Is  there  one  in  Ohio  but 
declares  his  firm  belief  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  did  not  mean  negroes  at  all?  I 
do  not  know  how  this  is ;  I  have  not  been  here 
much;  but  I  presume  you  are  very  much  alike 
everywhere.  Then  I  suppose  that  all  now  ex- 
press the  belief  that  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence never  did  mean  negroes.  I  call  upon  one 
of  them  to  say  that  he  said  it  five  years  ago. 

If  you  think  that  now,  and  did  not  think  it 
then,  the  next  thing  that  strikes  me  is  to  remark 
that  there  has  been  a  change  wrought  in  you, 
and  a  very  significant  change  it  is,  being  no  less 
than  changing  the  negro,  in  your  estimation, 
from  the  rank  of  a  man  to  that  of  a  brute.  They 
are  taking  him  down,  and  placing  him,  when 


i8s9]  AT  COLUMBUS  239 

spoken  of,  among  reptiles  and  crocodiles,  as 
Judge  Douglas  himself  expresses  it.* 

Is  not  this  change  wrought  in  your  minds  a 
very  important  change?  Public  opinion  in  this 
country  is  everything.  In  a  nation  like  ours  this 
popular  sovereignty  and  squatter  sovereignty 
have  already  wrought  a  change  in  the  public 
mind  to  the  extent  I  have  stated.  There  is  no 
man  in  this  crowd  who  can  contradict  it. 

Now,  if  you  are  opposed  to  slavery  honestly, 
as  much  as  anybody,  I  ask  you  to  note  that  fact, 
and  the  like  of  which  is  to  follow,  to  be  plastered 
on,  layer  after  layer,  until  very  soon  you  are  pre- 
pared to  deal  with  the  negro  everywhere  as  with 
the  brute.  If  public  sentiment  has  not  been  de- 
bauched already  to  this  point,  a  new  turn  of  the 
screw  in  that  direction  is  all  that  is  wanting ;  and 
this  is  constantly  being  done  by  the  teachers  of 
this  insidious  popular  sovereignty.  You  need 
but  one  or  two  turns  further  until  your  minds, 
now  ripening  under  these  teachings,  will  be 
ready  for  all  these  things,  and  you  will  receive 
and  support,  or  submit  to,  the  slave-trade  re- 
vived with  all  its  horrors,  a  slave  code  enforced 
in  our  Territories,  and  a  new  Dred  Scott  decision 
to  bring  slavery  up  into  the  very  heart  of  the 
free  North.  This,  I  must  say,  is  but  carrying 
out  those  words  prophetically  spoken  by  Mr. 
Clay  many,  many  years  ago, — I  believe  more 
than   thirty   years,— when   he   told   an   audience 

*  On  his  Sovtthern  tour  late  in  1858^  Senator  Douglas 
said  that  on  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana  it  was 
not  "a  question  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro, 
but  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile."  Between  the 
negro  and  the  crocodile,  he  said,  he  took  the  side  of 
the  negro ;  but  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man, 
be  would  go  for  the  white  man. 


240  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

that  if  they  would  repress  all  tendencies  to 
liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation,  they  must  go 
back  to  the  era  of  our  independence  and  muzzle 
the  cannon  which  thundered  its  annual  joyous 
return  on  the  Fourth  of  July;  they  must  blow 
out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  they  must  pene- 
trate the  human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  love  of 
liberty;  but  until  they  did  these  things,  and 
others  eloquently  enumerated  by  him,  they  could 
not  repress  all  tendencies  to  ultimate  emancipa- 
tion. 

I  ask  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  a  preeminent 
degree  these  popular  sovereigns  are  at  this 
work :  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ; 
teaching  that  the  negro  is  no  longer  a  man,  but  a 
brute;  that  the  Declaration  has  nothing  to  do 
with  him ;  that  he  ranks  with  the  crocodile  and 
the  reptile ;  that  man,  with  body  and  soul,  is  a 
matter  of  dollars  and  cents.  I  suggest  to  this 
portion  of  the  Ohio  Republicans,  or  Democrats, 
if  there  be  any  present,  the  serious  consideration 
of  this  fact,  that  there  is  now  going  on  among 
you  a  steady  process  of  debauching  public 
opinion  on  this  subject.  With  this,  my  friends, 
I  bid  you  adieu. 

"A  Shot  over  the  Line." 

An  Address  to  Kentuckians  on  Douglas's 
Fallacies,  Delivered  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
September  17,  1859. 

My  Fellow-citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio:  This 
is  the  first  time  in  my  life  that  I  have  appeared 
before  an  audience  in  so  great  a  city  as  this.  I 
therefore — though  I  am  no  longer  a  young  man 


idsgl  AT  CINCINNATI  241 

— make  this  appearance  under  some  degree  of 
embarrassment.  But  I  have  found  that  when 
one  is  embarrassed,  usually  the  shortest  way  to 
get  through  with  it  is  to  quit  talking  or  thinking 
about  it,  and  go  at  something  else. 

I  understand  that  you  have  had  recently  with 
you  my-very  distinguished  friend.  Judge  Doug- 
las, of  Illinois,  and  I  understand,  without  having 
had  an  opportunity  (not  greatly  sought,  to  be 
sure)  of  seeing  a  report  of  the  speech  that  he 
made  here,  that  he  did  me  the  honor  to  mention 
my  humble  name.  I  suppose  that  he  did  so  for 
the  purpose  of  making  some  objection  to  some 
sentiment  at  some  time  expressed  by  me.  I 
should  expect,  it  is  true,  that  Judge  Douglas  had 
reminded  you,  or  informed  you,  if  you  had  never, 
before  heard  it,  that  I  had  once  in  my  life  de- 
clared it  is  my  opinion  that  this  government  can- 
not ''endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free;  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand,"  and,  as  I  had  expressed  it,  I  did  not  ex- 
pect the  house  to  fall ;  that  I  did  not  expect  the 
Union  to  be  dissolved,  but  that  I  did  expect  it 
would  cease  to  be  divided ;  that  it  would  become 
all  one  thing  or  all  the  other ;  that  either  the  op- 
position of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread 
of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  would 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  or  the  friends  of  slavery  will 
push  it  forward  until  it  becomes  alike  lawful  in 
all  the  States,  old  or  new,  free  as  well  as  slave. 
I  did,  fifteen  months  ago,  express  that  opinion, 
and  upon  many  occasions  Judge  Douglas  has 
denounced  it,  and  has  greatly,  intentionally  or 
unintentionally,  misrepresented  my  purpose  in 
the  expression  of  that  opinion. 


242  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

I  presume,  without  having  seen  a  report  of 
his  speech,  that  he  did  so  here.  I  presume  that 
he  alluded  also  to  that  opinion  in  different 
language,  having  been  expressed  at  a  subsequent 
time  by  Governor  Seward,  of  New  York,  and 
that  he  took  the  two  in  a  lump  and  denounced 
them ;  that  he  tried  to  point  out  that  there  was 
something  couched  in  this  opinion  which  led  to 
the  making  of  an  entire  uniformity  of  the  local 
institutions  of  the  various  States  of  the  Union, 
in  utter  disregard  of  the  different  States,  which 
in  their  nature  would  seem  to  require  a  variety 
of  institutions,  and  a  variety  of  laws  conforming 
to  the  differences  in  the  nature  of  the  different 
States. 

Not  only  so ;  I  presume  he  insisted  that  this 
was  a  declaration  of  war  between  the  free  and 
slave  States — that  it  was  the  sounding  to  the  on- 
set of  continual  war  between  the  different  States, 
the  slave  and  free  States. 

This  charge,  in  this  form,  was  made  by  Judge 
Douglas  on,  I  believe,  the  9th  of  July,  1858,  in 
Chicago,  in  my  hearing.  On  the  next  evening,  I 
made  some  reply  to  it.  I  informed  him  that 
many  of  the  inferences  he  drew  from  that  ex- 
pression of  mine  were  altogether  foreign  to  any 
purpose  entertained  by  me,  and  in  so  far  as  he 
should  ascribe  these  inferences  to  me,  as  my  pur- 
pose, he  was  entirely  mistaken ;  and  in  so  far  as 
he  might  argue  that  whatever  might  be  my  pur- 
pose, actions,  conforming  to  my  views,  would 
lead  to  these  results,  he  might  argue  and  es- 
tablish if  he  could;  but,  so  far  as  purposes  were 
concerned,  he  was  totally  mistaken  as  to  me. 

When  I  made  that  reply  to  him,  I  told  him,  on 
the  question  of  declaring  war  between  the  dif- 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  243 

ferent  States  of  the  Union,  that  I  had  not  said  I 
did  not  expect  any  peace  upon  this  question  until 
slavery  was  exterminated ;  that  I  had  only  said 
I  expected  peace  when  that  institution  was  put 
where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  that 
I  believed,  from  the  organization  of  our  govern- 
ment until  a  very  recent  period  of  time,  the  in- 
stitution had  been  placed  and  continued  upon 
such  a  basis ;  that  we  had  had  comparative  peace 
upon  that  question  through  a  portion  of  that 
period  of  time,  only  because  the  public  mind 
rested  in  that  belief  in  regard  to  it,  and  that  when 
we  returned  to  that  position  in  relation  to  that 
matter,  I  sn.pposed  we  should  again  have  peace 
as  we  previously  had.  I  assured  him,  as  I  now 
assure  you,  that  I  neither  then  had,  nor  have,  nor 
ever  had,  any  purpose  in  any  way  of  interfering 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  where  it  exists. 
I  believe  we  have  no  power,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  or  rather  under  the 
form  of  government  under  which  we  live,  to 
interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  any 
other  of  the  institutions  of  our  sister  States,  be 
they  free  or  slave  States.  I  declared  then,  and 
I  now  re-declare,  that  I  have  as  little  inclination 
to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  where 
it  now  exists,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
General  Government,  or  any  other  instrumental- 
ity, as  I  believe  we  have  no  power  to  do  so.  I 
accidentally  used  this  expression :  I  had  no  pur- 
pose of  entering  into  the  slave  States  to  disturb 
the  institution  of  slavery.  So,  upon  the  first  oc- 
casion that  Judge  Douglas  got  an  opportunity  to 
reply  to  me,  he  passed  by  the  whole  body  of  what 
I  had  said  upon  that  subject,  and  seized  upon  the 


244 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 


particular  expression  of  mine,  that  I  had  no  pur- 
pose of  entering  into  the  slave  States  to  disturb 
the  institution  of  slavery.  ''Oh,  no,''  said  he; 
"he  [Lincoln']  won't  enter  into  the  slave  States  to 
disturb  the  institution  of  slavery;  he  is  too 
prudent  a  man  to  do  such  a  thing  as  that;  he 
only  means  that  he  will  go  on  to  the  line  between 
the  free  and  slave  States,  and  shoot  over  at  them. 
This  is  all  he  means  to  do.  He  means  to  do 
them  all  the  harm  he  can,  to  disturb  them  all  he 
can,  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  his  own  hide  in 
perfect  safety." 

Well,  now,  I  did  not  think,  at  that  time,  that 
that  was  either  a  very  dignified  or  very  logical 
argument;  but  so  it  was,  and  I  had  to  get  along 
with  it  as  well  as  I  could. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  here  to-night  that  if  I 
ever  do  shoot  over  the  line  at  the  people  on  the 
other  side  of  the  line,  into  a  slave  State,  and 
propose  to  do  so  keeping  my  skin  safe,  that  I 
have  now  about  the  best  chance  I  shall  ever  have. 
I  should  not  wonder  if  there  are  some  Kentuck- 
ians  about  this  audience;  we  are  close  to  Ken- 
tucky ;  and  whether  that  be  so  or  not,  we  are  on 
elevated  ground,  and  by  speaking  distinctly  I 
should  not  wonder  if  some  of  the  Kentuckians 
would  hear  me  on  the  other  side  of  the  river. 
For  that  reason  I  propose  to  address  a  portion 
of  what  I  have  to  say  to  the  Kentuckians. 

I  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Ken- 
tuckians, that  I  am  what  they  call,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  a  ''Black  Republican."  I  think  slavery 
is  wrong,  morally  and  politically.  I  desire  that 
it  should  be  no  further  spread  in  these  United 
States,  and  I  should  not  object  if  it  should 
gradually  terminate  in  the  whole  Union.     While 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  245 

I  say  this  for  myself,  I  say  to  you  Kentuckians 
that  I  understand  you  differ  radically  with  me 
upon  this  proposition ;  that  you  believe  slavery  is 
a  good  thing ;  that  slavery  is  right ;  that  it  ought 
to  be  extended  and  perpetuated  in  this  Union. 
Now,  there  being  this  broad  difference  between 
us,  I  do  not  pretend,  in  addressing  myself  to  you 
Kentuckians,  to  attempt  proselyting  you ;  that 
would  be  a  vain  effort.  I  do  not  enter  upon  it. 
I  only  propose  to  try  to  show  you  that  you  ought 
to  nominate  for  the  next  presidency,  at  Charles- 
ton, my  distinguished  friend.  Judge  Douglas. 
In  all  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between  you 
and  him ;  I  understand  he  is  as  sincerely  for  you, 
and  more  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are  for  your- 
selves. I  will  try  to  demonstrate  that  proposi- 
tion. Understand  now,  I  say  that  I  believe  he  is 
as  sincerely  for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you, 
than  you  are  for  yourselves. 

What  do  you  want  more  than  anything  else 
to  make  successful  your  views  of  slavery — to 
advance  the  outspread  of  it,  and  to  secure  and 
perpetuate  the  nationality  of  it?  What  do  you 
want  more  than  anything  else?  What  is  needed 
absolutely?  What  is  indispensable  to  you? 
Why,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  answer  the  question, 
it  is  to  retain  a  hold  upon  the  North — it  is  to  re- 
tain support  and  strength  from  the  free  States. 
If  you  can  get  this  support  and  strength  from 
the  free  States,  you  can  succeed.  If  you  do  not 
get  this  support  and  this  strength  from  the  free 
States,  you  are  in  the  minority,  and  you  are 
beaten  at  once. 

If  that  proposition  be  admitted, — and  it  is  un- 
deniable,— then  the  next  thing  I  say  to  you  is, 
that  Douglas  of  all  the  men  in  this  nation  is  the 


246  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

only  man  that  affords  you  any  hold  upon  the 
free  States ;  that  no  other  man  can  give  you  any 
strength  in  the  free  States.  This  being  so,  if 
you  doubt  the  other  branch  of  the  proposition, 
whether  he  is  for  you, — whether  he  is  really  for 
you,  as  I  have  expressed  it, — I  propose  asking 
your  attention  for  a  while  to  a  few  facts. 

The  issue  between  you  and  me,  understand,  is 
that  I  think  slavery  is  wrong,  and  ought  not  to 
be  outspread,  and  you  think  it  is  right,  and  ought 
to  be  extended  and  perpetuated.  I  now  proceed 
to  try  to  show  to  you  that  Douglas  is  as  sincerely 
for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are 
for  yourselves. 

In  the  first  place,  we  know  that  in  a  govern- 
ment like  this,  a  government  of  the  people,  where 
the  voice  of  all  the  men  of  the  country,  sub- 
stantially, enters  into  the  administration  of  the 
government,  what  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  of  it 
is  public  opinion.  I  lay  down  the  proposition 
that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  only  the  man  that 
promises  you  in  advance  a  hold  upon  the  North, 
and  support  in  the  North,  but  that  he  constantly 
molds  public  opinion  to  your  ends ;  that  in  every 
possible  way  he  can,  he  molds  the  public  opinion 
of  the  North  to  your  ends ;  and  if  there  are  a  few 
things  in  which  he  seems  to  be  against  you, — a 
few  things  which  he  says  that  appear  to  be 
against  you,  and  a  few  that  he  forbears  to  say 
which  you  would  like  to  have  him  say, — you 
ought  to  remember  that  the  saying  of  the  one, 
or  the  forbearing  to  say  the  other,  would  lose  his 
hold  upon  the  North,  and,  by  consequence,  would 
lose  his  capacity  to  serve  you. 

Upon  this  subject  of  molding  public  opinion, 
I   call  your   attention  to  the   fact — for  a  well- 


i859]  AT  CINCINNATI  247 

established  fact  it  is — that  the  judge  never  says 
your  institution  of  slavery  is  wrong:  he  never 
says  it  is  right,  to  be  sure,  but  he  never  says  it  is 
v^rong.  There  is  not  a  public  man  in  the  United 
States,  I  believe,  with  the  exception  of  Senator 
Douglas,  who  has  not,  at  some  time  in  his  life, 
declared  his  opinion  whether  the  thing  is  right 
or  wrong;  but  Senator  Douglas  never  declares 
it  is  wrong.  He  leaves  himself  at  perfect  liberty 
to  do  all  in  your  favor  which  he  would  be  hin- 
dered from  doing  if  he  were  to  declare  the  thing 
to  be  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  he  takes  all  the 
chances  that  he  has  for  inveigling  the  sentiment 
of  the  North,  opposed  to  slavery,  into  your  sup- 
port, by  never  saying  it  is  right.  This  you  ought 
to  set  down  to  his  credit.  You  ought  to  give 
him  full  credit  for  this  much,  little  though  it  be 
in  comparison  to  the  whole  which  he  does  for 
you. 

Some  other  things  I  will  ask  your  attention  to. 
He  said  upon  the  floor  of  the  United  States 
Senate,  and  he  has  repeated  it,  as  I  understand, 
a  great  many  times,  that  he  does  not  care 
whether  slavery  is  'Voted  up  or  voted  down." 
This  again  shows  you,  or  ought  to  show  you,  if 
you  would  reason  upon  it,  that  he  does  not  be- 
lieve it  to  be  wrong ;  for  a  man  may  say,  when  he 
sees  nothing  wrong  in  a  thing,  that  he  does  not 
care  whether  it  be  voted  up  or  voted  down ;  but 
no  man  can  logically  say  that  he  cares  not 
whether  a  thing  goes  up  or  goes  down  which  ap- 
pears to  him  to  be  wrong.  You  therefore  have 
a  demonstration  in  this,  that  to  Judge  Douglas's 
mind  your  favorite  institution,  which  you  desire 
to  have  spread  out  and  made  perpetual,  is  no 
wrong. 


248  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

Another  thing  he  tells  you,  in  a  speech  made  at 
Memphis,  in  Tennessee,  shortly  after  the  canvass 
in  Illinois,  last  year.  He  there  distinctly  told  the 
people  that  there  was  a  ''line  drawn  by  the  Al- 
mighty across  this  continent,  on  the  one  side  of 
which  the  soil  must  always  be  cultivated  by 
slaves ;"  that  he  did  not  pretend  to  know  exactly 
where  that  line  was,  but  that  there  was  such  a 
line.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to  that  prop- 
osition again — that  there  is  one  portion  of  this 
continent  where  the  Almighty  has  designed  the 
soil  shall  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves ;  that  its 
being  cultivated  by  slaves  at  that  place  is  right; 
that  it  has  the  direct  sympathy  and  authority  of 
the  Almighty.  Whenever  you  can  get  these 
Northern  audiences  to  adopt  the  opinion  that 
slavery  is  right  on  the  other  side  of  the  Ohio; 
whenever  you  can  get  them,  in  pursuance  of 
Douglas's  views,  to  adopt  that  sentiment,  they 
will  very  readily  make  the  other  argument,  which 
is  perfectly  logical,  that  that  which  is  right  on 
that  side  of  the  Ohio  cannot  be  wrong  on  this, 
and  that  if  you  have  that  property  on  that  side  of 
the  Ohio,  under  the  seal  and  stamp  of  the  Al- 
mighty, when  by  any  means  it  escapes  over  here, 
it  is  wrong  to  have  constitutions  and  laws  "to 
devil"  you  about  it.  So  Douglas  is  molding  the 
public  opinion  of  the  North,  first  to  say  that  the 
thing  is  right  in  your  State  over  the  Ohio  River, 
and  hence  to  say  that  that  which  is  right  there  is 
not  wrong  here,  and  that  all  laws  and  constitu- 
tions here,  recognizing  it  as  being  wrong,  are 
themselves  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  repealed  and 
abrogated.  He  will  tell  you,  men  of  Ohio,  that 
if  you  choose  here  to  have  laws  against  slavery, 
it  is  in  conformity  to  the  idea  that  your  climate 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  249 

is  not  suited  to  it ;  that  your  climate  is  not  suited 
to  slave  labor,  and  therefore  you  have  constitu- 
tions and  laws  against  it. 

Let  us  attend  to  that  argument  for  a  little 
while,  and  see  if  it  be  sound.  You  do  not  raise 
sugar-cane  (except  the  new-fashioned  sugar- 
cane, and  you  won't  raise  that  long),  but  they  do 
raise  it  in  Louisiana.  You  don't  raise  it  in  Ohio 
because  you  can't  raise  it  profitably,  because  the 
climate  don't  suit  it.  They  do  raise  it  in  Loui- 
siana because  there  it  is  profitable.  Now  Douglas 
will  tell  you  that  is  precisely  the  slavery  ques- 
tion :  that  they  do  have  slaves  there  because  they 
are  profitable,  and  you  don't  have  them  here  be- 
cause they  are  not  profitable.  If  that  is  so,  then 
it  leads  to  dealing  with  the  one  precisely  as  with 
the  other.  Is  there,  then,  anything  in  the  con- 
stitution or  laws  of  Ohio  against  raising  sugar- 
cane? Have  you  found  it  necessary  to  put  any 
such  provision  in  your  law  ?  Surely  not !  No 
man  desires  to  raise  sugar-cane  in  Ohio ;  but  if 
any  man  did  desire  to  do  so,  you  would  say  it 
was  a  tyrannical  law  that  forbids  his  doing  so; 
and  whenever  you  shall  agree  with  Douglas, 
whenever  your  minds  are  brought  to  adopt  his 
argument,  as  surely  you  will  have  reached  the 
conclusion  that  although  slavery  is  not  profitable 
in  Ohio,  if  any  man  want  it,  it  is  wrong  to  him 
not  to  let  him  have  it. 

In  this  matter  Judge  Douglas  is  preparing  the 
public  mind  for  you  of  Kentucky,  to  make  per- 
petual that  good  thing  in  your  estimation,  about 
which  you  and  I  dififer. 

In  this  connection  let  me  ask  your  attention 
to  another  thing.  I  believe  it  is  safe  to  assert 
that^  five  years  ago,  no  living  man  had  expressed 


250  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

the  opinion  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Let  me  state  that 
again :  Five  years  ago  no  Hving  man  had  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  the  negro  had  no  share 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  is 
in  this  large  audience  any  man  who  ever  knew  of 
that  opinion  being  put  upon  paper  as  much  as 
five  years  ago,  I  will  be  obliged  to  him  now,  or 
as  a  subsequent  time,  to  show  it. 

If  that  be  true,  I  wish  you  then  to  note  the 
next  fact — that  within  the  space  of  five  years 
Senator  Douglas,  in  the  argument  of  this  ques- 
tion, has  got  his  entire  party,  so  far  as  I  know, 
without  exception,  to  join  in  saying  that  the 
negro  has  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. If  there  be  now  in  all  these  United 
States  one  Douglas  man  that  does  not  say  this, 
I  have  been  unable  upon  any  occasion  to  scare 
him  up.  Now,  if  none  of  you  said  this  five  years 
ago,  and  all  of  you  say  it  now,  that  is  a  matter 
that  you  Kentuckians  ought  to  note.  That  is  a 
vast  change  in  the  Northern  public  sentiment 
upon  that  question. 

Of  what  tendency  is  that  change?  The  tend- 
ency of  that  change  is  to  bring  the  public  mind 
to  the  conclusion  that  when  men  are  spoken  of, 
the  negro  is  not  meant ;  that  when  negroes  are 
spoken  of,  brutes  alone  are  contemplated.  That 
change  in  public  sentiment  has  already  degraded 
the  black  man,  in  the  estimation  of  Douglas  and 
his  followers,  from  the  condition  of  a  man  of 
some  sort,  and  assigned  him  to  the  condition  of  a 
brute.  Now  you  Kentuckians  ought  to  give 
Douglas  credit  for  this.  That  is  the  largest 
possible  stride  that  can  be  made  in  regard  to  the 
perpetuation  of  your  good  thing  of  slavery. 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  251 

In  Kentucky,  perhaps, — in  many  of  the  slave 
States  certainly, — you  are  trying  to  establish  the 
rightfulness  of  slavery  by  reference  to  the  Bible. 
You  are  trying  to  show  that  slavery  existed  in 
the  Bible  times  by  divine  ordinance.  Now 
Douglas  is  wiser  than  you  for  your  own  benefit, 
upon  that  subject.  Douglas  knows  that  when- 
ever you  establish  that  slavery  was  right  by  the 
Bible,  it  will  occur  that  that  slavery  was  the 
slavery  of  the  white  man, — of  men  without  ref- 
erence to  color, — and  he  knows  very  well  that 
you  may  entertain  that  idea  in  Kentucky  as  much 
as  you  please,  but  you  will  never  win  any  North- 
ern support  upon  it.  He  makes  a  wiser  argu- 
ment for  you ;  he  makes  the  argument  that  the 
slavery  of  the  black  man,  the  slavery  of  the  man 
who  has  a  skin  of  a  different  color  from  your 
own,  is  right.  He  thereby  brings  to  your  sup- 
port Northern  voters  v/ho  could  not  for  a  mo- 
ment be  brought  by  your  own  argument  of  the 
Bible-right  of  slavery.  Will  you  not  give  him 
credit  for  that?  Will  you  not  say  that  in  this 
matter  he  is  more  wisely  for  you  than  you  are 
for  yourselves  ? 

Now,  having  established  with  his  entire  party 
this  doctrine, — having  been  entirely  successful  in 
that  branch  of  his  efforts  in  your  behalf, — he  is 
ready  for  another. 

At  this  same  meeting  at  Memphis,  he  declared 
that  in  all  contests  between  the  negro  and  the 
white  man,  he  was  for  the  white  man,  but  that  in 
all  questions  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile 
he  was  for  the  negro.  He  did  not  make  that 
declaration  accidentally  at  Memphis.  He  made 
it  a  great  many  times  in  the  canvass  in  Illinois 
last  year  (though  I  don't  know  that  it  was  re- 


252 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  17 


ported  in  any  of  his  speeches  there;  but  he  fre- 
quently made  it).  I  beheve  he  repeated  it  at 
Columbus,  and  I  should  not  wonder  if  he  re- 
peated it  here.  It  is,  then,  a  deliberate  way  of 
expressing  himself  upon  that  subject.  It  is  a 
matter  of  mature  deliberation  with  him  thus  to 
express  himself  upon  that  point  of  his  case.  It 
therefore  requires  some  deliberate  attention. 

The  first  inference  seems  to  be  that  if  you  do 
not  enslave  the  negro  you  are  wronging  the 
white  man  in  some  way  or  other ;  and  that  who- 
ever is  opposed  to  the  negro  being  enslaved  is, 
in  some  way  or  other,  against  the  white  man.  Is 
not  that  a  falsehood?  If  there  was  a  necessary 
conflict  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro,  I 
should  be  for  the  white  man  as  much  as  Judge 
Douglas;  but  I  say  there  is  no  such  necessary 
conflict.  I  say  that  there  is  room  enough  for  us 
all  to  be  free,  and  that  it  not  only  does  not  wrong 
the  white  man  that  the  negro  should  be  free,  but 
it  positively  wrongs  the  mass  of  the  white  men 
that  the  negro  should  be  enslaved ;  that  the  mass 
of  white  men  are  really  injured  by  the  effects  of 
slave-labor  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fields  of  their 
own  labor. 

But  I  do  not  desire  to  dwell  upon  this  branch 
of  the  question  more  than  to  say  that  this  as- 
sumption of  his  is  false,  and  I  do  hope  that  that 
fallacy  will  not  long  prevail  in  the  minds  of  in- 
telligent white  men.  At  all  events,  you  ought  to 
thank  Judge  Douglas  for  it.  It  is  for  your 
benefit  it  is  made. 

The  other  branch  of  it  is,  that  in  a  struggle  be- 
tween the  negro  and  the  crocodile,  he  is  for  the 
negro.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  there  is  any 
struggle  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile. 


i859]  AT  CINCINNATI  253 

either.  I  suppose  that  if  a  crocodile  (or,  as  we 
old  Ohio  River  boatman  used  to  call  them,  alliga- 
tors) should  come  across  a  white  man,  he  would 
kill  him  if  he  could,  and  so  he  would  a  negro. 
But  what,  at  last,  is  this  proposition?  I  believe 
that  it  is  a  sort  of  proposition  in  proportion, 
which  may  be  stated  thus :  '*As  the  negro  is  to 
the  white  man,  so  is  the  crocodile  to  the  negro ; 
and  as  the  negro  may  rightfully  treat  the  croco- 
dile as  a  beast  or  reptile,  so  the  white  man  may 
rightfully  treat  the  negro  as  a  beast  or  reptile." 
That  is  really  the  point  of  all  that  argument  of 
his. 

Now,  my  brother  Kentuckians,  who  believe  in 
this,  you  ought  to  thank  Judge  Douglas  for  hav- 
ing put  that  in  a  much  more  taking  way  than  any 
of  yourselves  have  done. 

Again,  Douglas's  great  principle,  "popular 
sovereignty,"  as  he  calls  it,  gives  you  by  natural 
consequence  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade  when- 
ever you  want  it.  If  you  are  disposed  to  ques- 
tion this,  listen  awhile,  consider  awhile,  what  I 
shall  advance  in  support  of  that  proposition. 

He  says  that  it  is  the  sacred  right  of  the  man 
who  goes  into  the  Territories  to  have  slavery  if 
he  wants  it.  Grant  that  for  argument's  sake. 
Is  it  not  the  sacred  right  of  the  man  who  don't 
go  there,  equally  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  he 
wants  them?  Can  you  point  out  the  difference? 
The  man  who  goes  into  the  Territories  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  or  any  other  new  Territory,  with 
the  sacred  right  of  taking  a  slave  there  which 
(belongs  to  him,  would  certainly  have  no  more 
(tight  to  take  one  there  than  I  would  who  own  no 
jslave,  but  who  would  desire  to  buy  one  and  take 
him  there.     You  will  not  say — you,  the  friends 


254  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

of  Judge  Douglas — but  that  the  man  who  does 
not  own  a  slave,  has  an  equal  right  to  buy  one 
and  take  him  to  the  Territory  as  the  other  does  ? 

I  say  that  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty,  es- 
tablishing his  sacred  right  in  the  people,  if  you 
please,  if  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  gives 
equally  the  sacred  right  to  the  people  of  the 
States  or  the  Territories  themselves  to  buy 
slaves,  wherever  they  can  buy  them  cheapest; 
and  if  any  man  can  show  a  distinction,  I  should 
like  to  hear  him  try  it.  If  any  man  can  show 
how  the  people  of  Kansas  have  a  better  right  to 
slaves  because  they  want  them,  than  the  people 
of  Georgia  have  to  buy  them  in  Africa,  I  want 
him  to  do  it.  I  think  it  cannot  be  done.  If  it  is 
''popular  sovereignty"  for  the  people  to  have 
slaves  because  they  want  them,  it  is  popular 
sovereignty  for  them  to  buy  them  in  Africa, 
because  they  desire  to  do  so. 

I  know  that  Douglas  has  recently  made  a  little 
effort — not  seeming  to  notice  that  he  had  a  dif- 
ferent theory — has  made  an  effort  to  get  rid  of 
that.  He  has  written  a  letter,  addressed  to 
somebody,  I  believe,  who  resides  in  Iowa,  declar- 
ing his  opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  that 
prohibit  the  African  slave-trade.  He  bases  his 
opposition  to  such  repeal  upon  the  ground  that 
these  laws  are  themselves  one  of  the  com- 
promises of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Now  it  would  be  very  interesting  to  see  j 
Judge  Douglas,  or  any  of  his  friends,  turn  to  the  , 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  point  out  j 
that  compromise,  to  show  where  there  is  any 
compromise  in  the  Constitution,  or  provision  in 
the  Constitution,  expressed  or  implied,  by  which 
the  administrators  of  that  Constitution  are  under 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  255 

any  obligation  to  repeal  the  African  slave-trade. 
I  know,  or  at  least  I  think  I  know,  that  the 
framers  of  that  Constitution  did  expect  that  the 
African  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the 
end  of  twenty  years,  to  which  time  their  prohibi- 
tion against  its  being  abolished  extended.  I 
think  there  is  abundant  contemporaneous  history 
to  show  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
expected  it  to  be  abolished.  But  while  they  so 
expected,  they  gave  nothing  for  that  expectation, 
and  they  put  no  provision  in  the  Constitution  re- 
quiring it  should  be  so  abolished.  The  migra- 
tion or  importation  of  such  persons  as  the  States 
shall  see  fit  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited,  but 
a  certain  tax  might  be  levied  upon  such  importa- 
tion. But  what  was  to  be  done  after  that  time? 
The  Constitution  is  as  silent  about  that  as  it  is 
silent,  personally,  about  myself.  There  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  it  about  that  subject — there  is 
only  the  expectation  of  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished 
at  the  end  of  that  time,  and  they  expected  it 
would  be  abolished,  owing  to  public  sentiment, 
before  that  time,  and  they  put  that  provision  in, 
in  order  that  it  should  not  be  abolished  before 
that  time,  for  reasons  which  I  suppose  they 
thought  to  be  sound  ones,  but  which  I  will  not 
now  try  to  enumerate  before  you. 

But  while  they  expected  the  slave-trade  would 
be  abolished  at  that  time,  they  expected  that  the 
spread  of  slavery  into  the  new  Territories  should 
also  be  restricted.  It  is  as  easy  to  prove  that 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  expected  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited 
from  extending  into  the  new  Territories,  as  it  is 
to  prove  that  it  was  expected  that  the  slave-trade 


256  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

should  be  abolished.  Both  these  things  were  ex- 
pected. One  was  no  more  expected  than  the 
other,  and  one  was  no  more  a  compromise  of  the 
Constitution  than  the  other.  There  was  nothing 
said  in  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  the  spread 
of  slavery  into  the  Territories.  I  grant  that, 
but  there  was  something  very  important  said 
about  it  by  the  same  generation  of  men  in  the 
adoption  of  the  old  ordinance  of  '87,  through 
the  influence  of  which  you  here  in  Ohio,  our 
neighbors  in  Indiana,  we  in  Illinois,  our  neigh- 
bors in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  are  happy, 
prosperous,  teeming  millions  of  free  men.  That 
generation  of  men,  though  not  to  the  full  extent 
members  of  the  convention  that  framed  the  Con- 
stitution, were  to  some  extent  members  of  that 
convention,  holding  seats  at  the  same  time  in  one 
body  and  the  other,  so  that  if  there  was  any 
compromise  on  either  of  these  subjects,  the 
strong  evidence  is  that  that  compromise  was  in 
favor  of  the  restriction  of  slavery  from  the  new 
Territories. 

But  Douglas  says  that  he  is  unalterably  op- 
posed to  the  repeal  of  those  laws ;  because,  in  his 
viev/,  it  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution. 
You  Kentuckians,  no  doubt,  are  somewhat  of- 
fended with  that !  You  ought  not  to  be !  You 
ought  to  be  patient!  You  ought  to  know  that 
if  he  said  less  than  that,  he  would  lose  the  power 
of  ''lugging"  the  Northern  States  to  your  sup- 
port. Really,  what  you  would  push  him  to  do 
would  take  from  him  his  entire  power  to  serve 
you.  And  you  ought  to  remember  how  long,  by 
precedent,  Judge  Douglas  holds  himself  obliged 
to  stick  by  compromise.  You  ought  to  remember 
that  by  the  time  you  yourselves  think  you  are 


18593  AT  CINCINNATI  257 

ready  to  inaugurate  measures  for  the  revival  of 
the  African  slave-trade,  that  sufficient  time  will 
have  arrived,  by  precedent,  for  Judge  Douglas  to 
break  through  that  compromise.  He  says  now 
nothing  more  strong  than  he  said  in  1849  when 
he  declared  in  favor  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
— that  precisely  four  years  and  a  quarter  after 
he  declared  that  compromise  to  be  a  sacred 
thing,  which  *'no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  dare 
to  touch,"  he,  himself,  brought  forward  the 
measure  ruthlessly  to  destroy  it.  By  a  mere 
calculation  of  time  it  will  only  be  four  years 
more  until  he  is  ready  to  take  back  his  profes- 
sion about  the  sacredness  of  the  compromise 
abolishing  the  slave-trade.  Precisely  as  soon  as 
you  are  ready  to  have  his  services  in  that  direc- 
tion, by  fair  calculation,  you  may  be  sure  of  hav- 
ing them. 

But  you  remember  and  set  down  to  Judge 
Douglas's  debt,  or  discredit,  that  he,  last  year, 
said  the  people  of  Territories  can,  in  spite  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  exclude  your  slaves  from 
those  Territories ;  that  he  declared  by  "unfriendly 
legislation"  the  extension  of  your  property  into 
the  new  Territories  may  be  cut  off  in  the  teeth  of 
that  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 

He  assumed  that  position  at  Freeport,  on  the 
27th  of  August,  1858.  He  said  that  the  people 
of  the  Territories  can  exclude  slavery,  in  so 
many  words.  You  ought,  however,  to  bear  in 
mJnd  that  he  has  never  said  it  since.  You  may 
hunt  in  every  speech  that  he  has  since  made,  and 
he  has  never  used  that  expression  once.  He  has 
never  seemed  to  notice  that  he  is  stating  his 
views  differently  from  what  he  did  then-;  but  by 


258  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

some  sort  of  accident,  he  has  always  really  stated 
it  differently.  He  has  always  since  then  de- 
clared that  "the  Constitution  does  not  carry 
slavery  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States 
beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  control 
it,  as  other  property."  Now  there  is  a  difference 
in  the  language  used  upon  that  former  occasion 
and  in  this  latter  day.  There  may  or  may  not  be 
a  difference  in  the  meaning,  but  it  is  worth  while 
considering  whether  there  is  not  also  a  difference 
in  meaning. 

What  is  it  to  exclude?  Why,  it  is  to  drive  it 
out.  It  is  in  some  way  to  put  it  out  of  the  Ter- 
ritory. It  is  to  force  it  across  the  line,  or  change 
its  character,  so  that  as  property  it  is  out  of 
existence.  But  what  is  the  controlling  of  it  "as 
other  property"  ?  Is  controlling  it  as  other  prop- 
erty the  same  thing  as  destroying  it,  or  driving 
it  away?  I  should  think  not.  I  should  think  the 
controlling  of  it  as  other  property  would  be  just 
about  what  you  in  Kentucky  should  want.  I 
understand  the  controlling  of  property  means  the 
controlling  of  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner  of 
it.  While  I  have  no  doubt  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  would  say  "God  speed"  to 
any  of  the  territorial  legislatures  that  should 
thus  control  slave  property,  they  would  sing 
quite  a  different  tune  if  by  the  pretense  of  con- 
trolling it  they  were  to  undertake  to  pass  laws 
which  virtually  excluded  it,  and  that  upon  a  very 
well  known  principle  to  all  lawyers,  that  what  a 
legislature  cannot  directly  do,  it  cannot  do  by 
indirection ;  that  as  the  legislature  has  not  the 
power  to  drive  slaves  out,  they  have  no  power 
by  indirection,  by  tax,  or  by  imposing  burdens 
in  any  way  on  that  property,  to  effect  the  same 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  259 

end,  and  that  any  attempt  to  do  so  would  be  held 
by  the  Dred  Scott  court  unconstitutional. 

Douglas  is  not  willing  to  stand  by  his  first 
proposition  that  they  can  exclude  it,  because  we 
have  seen  that  that  proposition  amounts  to  noth- 
ing more  nor  less  than  the  naked  absurdity  that 
you  may  lawfully  drive  out  that  which  has  a  law- 
ful right  to  remain.  He  admitted  at  first  that 
the  slave  might  be  lawfully  taken  into  the  Terri- 
tories under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  yet  asserted  that  he  might  be  lawfully 
driven  out.  That  being  the  proposition,  it  is  the 
absurdity  I  have  stated.  He  is  not  willing  to 
stand  in  the  face  of  that  direct,  naked,  and 
impudent  absurdity;  he  has,  therefore,  modi- 
fied his  language  into  that  of  being  "controlled 
as  other  property." 

The  Kentuckians  don't  like  this  in  Douglas ! 
I  will  tell  you  where  it  will  go.  He  now  swears 
by  the  court.  He  was  once  a  leading  man  in 
Illinois  to  break  down  a  court  because  it  had 
made  a  decision  he  did  not  like.*  But  he  now 
not  only  swears  by  the  court,  the  courts  having 
g-ot  to  working  for  you,  but  he  denounces  all  men 
that  do  not  swear  by  the  courts  as  unpatriotic, 
as  bad  citizens.  When  one  of  these  acts  of  un- 
friendly legislation  shall  impose  such  heavy  bur- 
dens as  to,  in  effect,  destroy  propertyin  slaves  in 
a  Territory,  and  show  plainly  enough  that  there 
can  be  no  mistake  in  the  purpose  of  the  legis- 
lature to  make  them  so  burdensome,  this  same 
Supreme  Court  will  decide  that  law  to  be  un- 
constitutional, and  he  will  be  ready  to  say  for 
your  benefit,  'T  swear  by  the  court ;  I  give  it  up" ; 
and  while  that  is  going  on  he  has  been  getting  all 
*  See  page  149,  volume  one  of  present  edition. 


26o  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

his  men  to  swear  by  the  courts,  and  to  give  it  up 
with  him.  In  this  again  he  serves  you  faithfully, 
and,  as  I  say,  more  wisely  than  you  serve  your- 
selves. 

Again,  I  have  alluded  in  the  beginning  of 
these  remarks  to  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  has 
made  great  complaint  of  my  having  expressed 
the  opinion  that  this  government  ^'cannot  endure 
permanently  half  slave  and  half  free."  He  has 
complained  of  Seward  for  using  different  lan- 
guage, and  declaring  that  there  is  an  "irrepres- 
sible conflict"  between  the  principles  of  free  and 
slave  labor.  [A  voice:  ''He  says  it  is  not  original 
with  Seward.  That  is  original  with  Lincoln."] 
I  will  attend  to  that  immediately,  sir.  Since  that 
time,  Hickman,  of  Pennsylvania,  expressed  the 
same  sentiment.  He  has  never  denounced  Mr. 
Hickman.  Why?  There  is  a  little  chance,  not- 
withstanding that  opinion  in  the  mouth  of  Hick- 
man, that  he  may  yet  be  a  Douglas  man.  That 
is  the  difference.  It  is  not  unpatriotic  to  hold 
that  opinion,  if  a  man  is  a  Douglas  man. 

But  neither  I,  nor  Seward,  nor  Hickman  is 
entitled  to  the  enviable  or  unenviable  distinction 
of  having  first  expressed  that  idea.  That  same 
idea  was  expressed  by  the  Richmond  Enquirer 
in  Virginia,  in  1856,  quite  two  years  before  it 
was  expressed  by  the  first  of  us.  And  while 
Douglas  was  pluming  himself  that  in  his  conflict 
with  my  humble  self,  last  year,  he  had 
^'squelched  out"  that  fatal  heresy,  as  he  delighted 
to  call  it,  and  had  suggested  that  if  he  only  had 
had  a  chance  to  be  in  New  York  and  meet 
Seward  he  would  have  ''squelched"  it  there  also, 
it  never  occurred  to  him  to  breathe  a  word 
against  Pryor.     I  don't  think  that  you  can  dis- 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  261 

cover  that  Douglas  ever  talked  of  going  to  Vir- 
ginia to  ''squelch"  out  that  idea  there.  No. 
More  than  that.  That  same  Roger  A.  Pryor 
was  brought  to  Washington  City  and  made  the 
editor  of  the  par  excellence  Douglas  paper  after 
making  use  of  that  expression  which,  in  us,  is  so 
unpatriotic  and  heretical.  From  all  this  my 
Kentucky  friends  may  see  that  this  opinion  is 
heretical  in  his  view  only  when  it  is  expressed 
by  men  suspected  of  a  desire  that  the  country 
shall  all  become  free,  and  not  when  expressed  by 
those  fairly  known  to  entertain  the  desire  that 
the  whole  country  shall  become  slave.  When  ex- 
pressed by  that  class  of  men,  it  is  no  wise  of- 
fensive to  him.  In  this  again,  my  friends  of 
Kentucky,  who  have  Judge  Douglas  with  you. 

There  is  another  reason  why  you  Southern 
people  ought  to  nominate  Douglas  at  your  con- 
vention at  Charleston.  That  reason  is  the  won- 
derful capacity  of  the  man ;  the  power  he  has  of 
doing  what  would  seem  to  be  impossible.  Let 
me  call  your  attention  to  one  of  these  apparently 
impossible  things. 

Douglas  had  three  or  four  very  distinguished 
men,  of  the  most  extreme  antislavery  views  of 
any  men  in  the  Republican  party,  expressing 
their  desire  for  his  reelection  to  the  Senate  last 
year.  That  would,  of  itself,  have  seemed  to  be 
a  little  wonderful,  but  that  wonder  is  heightened 
when  we  see  that  Wise,  of  Virginia,  a  man 
exactly  opposed  to  them,  a  man  who  believes  in 
the  divine  right  of  slavery,  was  also  expressing 
his  desire  that  Douglas  should  be  reelected ;  that 
another  man  that  may  be  said  to  be  kindred  to 
Wise,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  Vice-President,  and 
of  your  own  State,  was  also  agreeing  with  the 


262  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

antislavery  men  in  the  North  that  Douglas  ought 
to  be  reelected.  Still,  to  heighten  the  wonder,  a 
senator  from  Kentucky,  whom  I  have  always 
loved  with  an  affection  as  tender  and  endearing 
as  I  have  ever  loved  any  man,  who  was  opposed 
to  the  antislavery  men  for  reasons  which  seemed 
sufficient  to  him,  and  equally  opposed  to  Wise 
and  Breckinridge,  was  writing  letters  into  Illinois 
to  secure  the  reelection  of  Douglas.  Now  that 
ail  these  conflicting  elements  should  be  brought, 
while  at  daggers'  points  with  one  another,  to 
support  him,  is  a  feat  that  is  worthy  for  you  to 
note  and  consider.  It  is  quite  probable  that  each 
of  these  classes  of  men  thought,  by  the  reelection 
of  Douglas,  their  peculiar  views  would  gain 
something :  it  is  probable  that  the  antislavery  men 
thought  their  views  would  gain  something;  that 
Wise  and  Breckinridge  thought  so  too,  as  re- 
gards their  opinions  ;  that  Mr.  Crittenden  thought 
that  his  views  would  gain  something,  although 
he  was  opposed  to  both  these  other  men.  It  is 
probable  that  each  and  all  of  them  thought  that 
they  were  using  Douglas,  and  it  is  yet  an  un- 
solved problem  whether  he  was  not  using  them 
all.  If  he  was,  then  it  is  for  you  to  consider 
whether  that  power  to  perform  wonders  is  one 
for  you  lightly  to  throw  away. 

There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  will  say  to  you 
in  this  relation.  It  is  but  my  opinion ;  I  give  it 
to  you  without  a  fee.  It  is  my  opinion  that  it  is 
for  you  to  take  him  or  be  defeated ;  and  that  if 
you  do  take  him  you  may  be  beaten.  You  will 
surely  be  beaten  if  you  do  not  take  him.  We,  the 
Republicans  and  others  forming  the  opposition 
of  the  country,  intend  to  "stand  by  our  guns," 
to  be  patient  and  firm,  and  in  the  long  run  to  beat 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  263 

you  whether  you  take  him  or  not.  We  know 
that  before  we  fairly  beat  you,  we  have  to  beat 
you  both  together.  We  know  that  **you  are  all 
of  a  feather,"  and  that  we  have  to  beat  you  all 
together,  and  we  expect  to  do  it.  We  don't  in- 
tend to  be  very  impatient  about  it.  We  mean 
to  be  as  deliberate  and  calm  about  it  as  it  is 
possible  to  be,  but  as  firm  and  resolved  as  it  is 
possible  for  men  to  be.  When  we  do  as  we  say, 
beat  you,  you  perhaps  want  to  know  what  we 
will  do  with  you. 

I  will  tell  you,  so  far  as  I  am  authorized  to 
speak  for  the  opposition,  what  we  mean  to  do 
with  you.  We  mean  to  treat  you,  as  near  as  we 
possibly  can,  as  Washington,  Jefiferson,  and 
Madison  treated  you.  We  mean  to  leave  you 
alone,  and  in  no  way  to  interfere  with  your  in- 
stitution ;  to  abide  by  all  and  every  compromise 
of  the  Constitution,  and,  in  a  word,  coming  back 
to  the  original  proposition,  to  treat  you,  so  far 
as  degenerated  men  (if  we  have  degenerated) 
may,  according  to  the  example  of  those  noble 
fathers — Washington,  Jefiferson,  and  Madison. 
We  mean  to  remember  that  you  are  as  good  as 
we ;  that  there  is  no  difference  between  us  other 
than  the  difference  of  circumstances.  We  mean 
to  recognize  and  bear  in  mind  always  that  you 
have  as  good  hearts  in  your  bosoms  as  other 
people,  or  as  we  claim  to  have,  and  treat  you  ac- 
cordingly. We  mean  to  marry  your  girls  when 
we  have  a  chance — the  white  ones,  I  mean,  and  I 
have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  once  did 
have  a  chance  in  that  way. 

I  have  told  you  what  we  mean  to  do.  I  want 
to  know,  now,  when  that  thing  takes  place,  what 
do  you  mean  to  do?     I  often  hear  it  intimated 


264  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

that  you  mean  to  divide  the  Union  whenever  a 
RepubHcan  or  anything  Hke  it  is  elected  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.     [A  voice:  ''That  is 
soT]     "That  is  so,"  one  of  them  says;  I  wonder 
if   he   is   a   Kentuckian?      [A    voice:   "He  is  a 
Douglas  man:']     Well,  then,   I  want  to  know 
what  you  are  going  to  do  with  your  half  of  it? 
Are  you  going  to  split  the  Ohio  down  through, 
and  push  your  half  off  a  piece?     Or  are  you 
going  to  keep  it  right  alongside  of  us  outrageous 
fellows  ?     Or  are  you  going  to  build  up  a  wall  some 
way  between  your  country  and  ours,  by  which 
that  movable  property  of  yours  can't  come  over 
here  any  m_ore,  to  the  danger  of  your  losing  it? 
Do  you  think  you  can  better  yourselves  on  that 
subject  by  leaving  us  here  under  no  obligation 
whatever  to  return  those  specimens  of  your  mov- 
able   property    that    come    hither?       You    have 
divided  the  Union  because  we  would  not  do  right 
with  you,  as  you  think,  upon  that  subject;  when 
we  cease  to  be  under  obligations  to  do  anything 
for  you,  how  much  better  off  do  you  think  you 
will  be  ?     Will  you  make  war  upon  us  and  kill  us 
all  ?     Why,  gentlemen,  I  think  you  are  as  gallant 
and  as  brave  men  as  live;  that  you  can  fight  as 
bravely  in  a  good  cause,  man  for  man,  as  any 
other  people  living;  that  you  have  shown  your- 
selves capable  of  this  upon  various  occasions ;  but 
man  for  man,  you  are  not  better  than  we  are,  and 
there  are  not  so  many  of  you  as  there  are  of  us. 
You  will  never  make  much  of  a  hand  at  whipping 
us.     If  we  were  fewer  in  numbers  than  you,  I 
think  that  you  could  whip  us ;  if  we  were  equal  it 
would  likely  be  a  drawn  battle ;  but  being  inferior 
in  numbers,  you  will  make  nothing  by  attempting 
to  master  us. 


I 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  265 

But  perhaps  I  have  addressed  myself  as  long, 
or  longer,  to  the  Kentuckians  than  I  ought  to 
have  done  inasmuch  as  I  have  said  that  what- 
ever course  you  take,  we  intend  in  the  end  to 
beat  you.  I  propose  to  address  a  few  remarks 
to  our  friends,  by  way  of  discussing  with  them 
the  best  means  of  keeping  that  promise  that  I 
have  in  good  faith  made. 

It  may  appear  a  little  episodical  for  me  to 
mention  the  topic  of  which  I  shall  speak  now.  It 
is  a  favorite  proposition  of  Douglas's  that  the 
interference  of  the  General  Government,  through 
the  ordinance  of  '87,  or  through  any  other  act  of 
the  General  Government,  never  has  made,  nor 
ever  can  make,  a  free  State;  that  the  ordinance 
of  '87  did  not  make  free  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana, 
or  Illinois ;  that  these  States  are  free  upon  his 
"great  principle"  of  popular  sovereignty,  because 
the  people  of  those  several  States  have  chosen  to 
make  them  so.  At  Columbus,  and  probably  here, 
he  undertook  to  compliment  the  people  that  they 
themselves  had  made  the  State  of  Ohio  free,  and 
that  the  ordinance  of  '87  was  not  entitled  in  any 
degree  to  divide  the  honor  with  him.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  did  make  her  free  according  to  their  own 
will  and  judgment;  but  let  the  facts  be  remem- 
bered. 

In  1802,  I  believe,  it  was  you  who  made  your 
first  constitution,  with  the  clause  prohibiting 
slavery,  and  you  did  it,  I  suppose,  very  nearly 
unanimously;  but  you  should  bear  in  mind  that 
you — speaking  of  you  as  one  people — that  you 
did  so  unembarassed  by  the  actual  presence  of 
the  institution  amongst  you ;  that  you  made  it  a 
free  State,  not  with  the  embarrassment  upon  you 


266  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

of  already  having  among  you  many  slaves, 
which,  if  they  had  been  here,  and  you  had  sought 
to  make  a  free  State,  you  would  not  know  what 
to  do  with.  If  they  had  been  among  you,  em- 
barrassing difficulties,  most  probably,  would  have 
induced  you  to  tolerate  a  slave  Constitution  in- 
stead of  a  free  one ;  as,  indeed,  these  very  dif- 
ficulties have  constrained  every  people  on  this 
continent  who  have  adopted  slavery. 

Pray,  what  was  it  that  made  you  free  ?  What 
kept  you  free?  Did  you  not  find  your  country 
free  when  you  came  to  decide  that  Ohio  should 
be  a  free  State?  It  is  important  to  inquire  by 
what  reason  you  found  it  so.  Let  us  take  an  il- 
lustration between  the  States  of  Ohio  and  Ken- 
tucky. Kentucky  is  separated  by  this  river 
Ohio,  not  a  mile  wide.  A  portion  of  Kentucky, 
by  reason  of  the  course  of  the  Ohio,  is  further 
north  than  this  portion  of  Ohio  in  which  we  now 
stand.  Kentucky  is  entirely  covered  with 
slavery — Ohio  is  entirely  free  from  it.  What 
made  that  difference  ?  Was  it  climate  ?  No ! 
A  portion  of  Kentucky  was  further  north  than 
this  portion  of  Ohio.  Was  it  soil  ?  No  !  There 
is  nothing  in  the  soil  of  the  one  more  favorable 
to  slave-labor  than  the  other.  It  was  not  climate 
or  soil  that  caused  one  side  of  the  line  to  be  en- 
tirely covered  with  slavery  and  the  other  side 
free  of  it.  What  was  it?  Study  over  it.  Tell 
us,  if  you  can,  in  all  the  range  of  conjecture,  if 
there  be  anything  you  can  conceive  of  that  made 
that  difference,  other  than  that  there  was  no  law 
of  any  sort  keeping  it  out  of  Kentucky,  while  the 
ordinance  of  '87  kept  it  out  of  Ohio.  If  there  is 
any  other  reason  than  this,  I  confess  that  it  is 
wholly  beyond  my  power  to  conceive  of  it.    This, 


i8s9]  AT  CINCINNATI  267 

then,  I  offer  to  combat  the  idea  that  that  ordi- 
nance has  never  made  any  State  free. 

I  don't  stop  at  this  illustration.  I  come  to  the 
State  of  Indiana ;  and  what  I  have  said  as  be- 
tween Kentucky  and  Ohio,  I  repeat  as  between 
Indiana  and  Kentucky ;  it  is  equally  applicable. 
One  additional  argument  is  applicable  also  to 
Indiana.  In  her  territorial  condition  she  more 
than  once  petitioned  Congress  to  abrogate  the 
ordinance  entirely,  or  at  least  so  far  as  to  sus- 
pend its  operation  for  a  time,  in  order  that  they 
should  exercise  the  ''popular  sovereignty"  of 
having  slaves  if  they  wanted  them.  The  men 
then  controlling  the  General  Government,  imitat- 
ing the  men  of  the  Revolution,  refused  Indiana 
that  privilege.  And  so  we  have  the  evidence 
that  Indiana  supposed  she  could  have  slaves,  if 
it  were  not  for  that  ordinance ;  that  she  besought 
Congress  to  put  that  barrier  out  of  the  way ;  that 
Congress  refused  to  do  so,  and  it  all  ended  at  last 
in  Indiana  being  a  free  State.  Tell  me  not  then 
that  the  ordinance  of  '87  had  nothing  to  do  with 
making  Indiana  a  free  State,  when  we  find  some 
men  chafing  against  and  only  restrained  by  that 
barrier. 

Come  down  again  to  our  State  of  Illinois. 
The  great  Northwest  Territory,  including  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  was 
acquired  first,  I  believe,  by  the  British  govern- 
ment, in  part,  at  least,  from  the  French.  Before 
the  establishment  of  our  independence,  it  became 
a  part  of  Virginia,  enabling  Virginia  afterward 
to  transfer  it  to  the  General  Government.  There 
were  French  settlements  in  what  is  now  Illinois, 
and  at  the  same  time  there  were  French  settle- 
ments in  what  is  now  Missouri — in  the  tract  of 


268  SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 

country  that  was  not  purchased  till  about  1803. 
In  these  French  settlements  negro  slavery  had 
existed  for  many  years — perhaps  more  than  a 
hundred,  if  not  as  much  as  two  hundred,  years — 
at  Kaskaskia,  in  Illinois,  and  at  St.  Genevieve,  or 
Cape  Girardeau,  perhaps,  in  Missouri.  The 
number  of  slaves  was  not  very  great,  but  there 
was  about  the  same  number  in  each  place.  They 
were  there  when  we  acquired  the  Territory. 
There  was  no  effort  made  to  break  up  the  rela- 
tion of  master  and  slave,  and  even  the  ordinance 
of  '87  was  not  so  enforced  as  to  destroy  that 
slavery  in  Illinois ;  nor  did  the  ordinance  apply  to 
Missouri  at  all. 

What  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to,  at  this 
point,  is  that  Illinois  and  Missouri  came  into  the 
Union  about  the  same  time,  Illinois  in  the  latter 
part  of  1818,  and  Missouri,  after  a  struggle,  I 
believe,  some  time  in  1820.  They  had  been  fill- 
ing up  with  American  people  about  the  same 
period  of  time,  their  progress  enabling  them  to 
come  into  the  Union  about  the  same.  At  the  end 
of  that  ten  years,  in  which  they  had  been  so  pre- 
paring (for  it  was  about  that  period  of  time),  the 
number  of  slaves  in  Illinois  had  actually  de- 
creased ;  while  in  Missouri,  beginning  with  very 
few,  at  the  end  of  that  ten  years  there  were  about 
ten  thousand.  This  being  so,  and  it  being  re- 
membered that  Missouri  and  Illinois  are,  to  a 
certain  extent,  in  the  same  parallel  of  latitude, — 
that  the  northern  half  of  Missouri  and  the  south- 
ern half  of  Illinois  are  in  the  same  parallel  of 
latitude, — so  that  climate  would  have  the  same 
effect  upon  one  as  upon  the  other ;  and  that  in 
the  soil  there  is  no  material  difference  so  far  as 
bears  upon  the  question  of  slavery  being  settled 


i859]  AT  CINCINNATI  269 

upon  one  or  the  other ;  there  being  none  of  those 
natural  causes  to  produce  a  difference  in  filUng 
them,  and  yet  there  being  a  broad  difference  in 
their  filHng  up,  we  are  led  again  to  inquire  what 
was  the  cause  of  that  difference. 

It  is  most  natural  to  say  that  in  Missouri  there 
was  no  law  to  keep  that  country  from  filling  up 
with  slaves,  while  in  Illinois  there  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  '87.  The  ordinance  being  there,  slavery 
decreased  during  that  ten  years — the  ordinance 
not  being  in  the  other,  it  increased  from  a  few  to 
ten  thousand.  Can  anybody  doubt  the  reason  of 
the  difference? 

I  think  all  these  facts  most  abundantly  prove 
that  my  friend  Judge  Douglas's  proposition,  that 
the  ordinance  of  '87,  or  the  national  restriction 
of  slavery,  never  had  a  tendency  to  make  a  free 
State,  is  a  fallacy — a  proposition  without  the 
shadow  or  substance  of  truth  about  it. 

Douglas  sometimes  says  that  all  the  States 
(and  it  is  part  of  that  same  proposition  I  have 
been  discussing)  that  have  become  free,  have  be- 
come so  upon  his  ''great  principle";  that  the 
State  of  Illinois  itself  came  into  the  Union  as  a 
slave  State,  and  that  the  people,  upon  the  ''great 
principle"  of  popular  sovereignty,  have  since 
made  it  a  free  State.  Allow  me  but  a  little  while 
to  state  to  you  what  facts  there  are  to  justify 
him  in  saying  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union 
as  a  slave  State. 

I  have  mentioned  to  you  that  there  were  a  few 
old  French  slaves  there.  They  numbered,  I 
think,  one  or  two  hundred.  Besides  that,  there 
had  been  a  territorial  law  for  indenturing  black 
persons.  Under  that  law,  in  violation  of  the 
ordinance  of  '87,  but  without  any  enforcement  of 


270 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  17 


the  ordinance  to  overthrow  the  system,  there  had 
been  a  small  number  of  slaves  introduced  as  in- 
dentured persons.  Owing  to  this,  the  clause  for 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  was  slightly  modified. 
Instead  of  running  like  yours,  that  neither  slav- 
ery nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime, 
of  which  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed, should  exist  in  the  State,  they  said  that 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  should 
thereafter  be  introduced,  and  that  the  children  of 
indentured  servants  should  be  born  free ;  and 
nothing  was  said  about  the  few  old  French 
slaves.  Out  of  this  fact,  that  the  clause  for 
prohibiting  slavery  was  modified  because  of  the 
actual  presence  of  it,  Douglas  asserts  again  and 
again  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State.  How  far  the  facts  sustain  the  conclusion 
that  he  draws,  it  is  for  intelligent  and  impartial 
men  to  decide.  I  leave  it  with  you,  with  these 
remarks,  worthy  of  being  remembered,  that  that 
little  thing,  those  few  indentured  servants  being 
there,  was  of  itself  sufficient  to  modify  a  con- 
stitution made  by  a  people  ardently  desiring  to 
have  a  free  constitution;  showing  the  power  of 
the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
to  prevent  any  people,  however  anxious  to  make 
a  free  State,  from  making  it  perfectly  so.  I 
have  been  detaining  you  longer  perhaps  than  I 
ought  to  do. 

I  am  in  some  doubt  whether  to  introduce  an- 
other topic  upon  which  I  could  talk  awhile. 
[Cries  of  ''Go  on,"  and  ''Give  us  if."]  It  is  this 
then — Douglas's  popular  sovereignty,  as  a  prin- 
ciple, is  simply  this :  If  one  man  chooses  to  make 
a  slave  of  another  man,  neither  that  man  nor 
anybody  else  has  ?-  right  to  object.     Apply  it  to 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  271 

government,  as  he  seeks  to  apply  it,  and  it  is 
this :  If,  in  a  new  Territory,  into  which  a  few 
people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of 
making  their  homes,  they  choose  to  either  ex- 
clude slavery  from  their  limits,  or  to  establish  it 
there,  however  one  or  the  other  may  affect  the 
persons  to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater 
number  of  persons  who  are  afterward  to  inhabit 
that  Territory,  or  the  other  members  of  the 
family  of  communities,  of  which  they  are  but  an 
incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the 
family  of  States  as  parent  of  all — however  their 
action  may  affect  one  or  the  other  of  these,  there 
is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere.  That  is 
Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  applied.  Now  I 
think  that  there  is  a  real  popular  sovereignty  in 
the  world.  I  think  a  definition  of  popular 
sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would  be  about  this 
— that  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he  pleases 
with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  ex- 
clusively concern  him.  Applied  in  government, 
this  principle  would  be,  that  a  general  govern- 
ment shall  do  all  those  things  which  pertain  to 
it,  and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do  pre- 
cisely as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters 
which  exclusively  concern  them. 

Douglas  looks  upon  slavery  as  so  insignificant 
that  the  people  must  decide  that  question  for 
themselves,  and  yet  they  are  not  fit  to  decide 
who  shall  be  their  governor,  judge,  or  secretary, 
or  who  shall  be  any  of  their  officers.  These  are 
vast  national  matters,  in  his  estimation ;  but  the 
little  matter  in  his  estimation  is  that  of  planting 
slavery  there.  That  is  purely  of  local  interest, 
which  nobody  should  be  allowed  to  say  a  word 
about. 


272  SPEECHES  rSept.  it 

Labor  is  the  great  source  from  which  nearly- 
all,  if  not  all,  human  comforts  and  necessities 
are  drawn.  There  is  a  difference  in  opinion  about 
the  elements  of  labor  in  society.  Some  men  as- 
sume that  there  is  a  necessary  connection  be- 
tween capital  and  labor,  and  that  connection 
draws  within  it  the  whole  of  the  labor  of  the 
community.  They  assume  that  nobody  works 
unless  capital  excites  him  to  work.  They  be- 
gin next  to  consider  what  is  the  best  way.  They 
say  there  are  but  two  ways — one  is  to  hire  men 
and  to  allure  them  to  labor  by  their  consent ;  the 
other  is  to  buy  the  men  and  drive  them  to  it,  and 
that  is  slavery.  Having  assumed  that,  they  pro- 
ceed to  discuss  the  question  of  whether  the 
laborers  themselves  are  better  off  in  the  condi- 
tion of  slaves  or  of  hired  laborers,  and  they 
usually  decide  that  they  are  better  off  in  the  con- 
dition of  slaves. 

In  the  first  place,  I  say  that  the  whole  thing  is 
a  mistake.  That  there  is  a  certain  relation  be- 
tween capital  and  labor,  I  admit.  That  it  does 
exist,  and  rightfully  exists,  I  think  is  true. 
That  men  who  are  industrious  and  sober  and 
honest  in  the  pursuit  of  their  own  interests 
should  after  a  while  accumulate  capital,  and 
after  that  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  it  in  peace, 
and  also  if  they  should  choose,  when  they  have 
accumulated  it,  to  use  it  to  save  themselves  from 
actual  labor,  and  hire  other  people  to  labor  for 
them,  is  right.  In  doing  so,  they  do  not  wrong 
the  man  they  employ,  for  they  find  men,  who 
have  not  their  own  land  to  work  upon,  or  shops 
to  work  in,  and  who  are  benefited  by  working 
for  others — hired  laborers,  receiving  their  cap- 
ital for  it.     Thus  a  few  men  that  own  capital 


1859]  AT  CINCINNATI  273 

hire  a  few  others,  and  these  estabhsh  the  rela- 
tion of  capital  and  labor  rightfully — a  relation 
of  which  I  make  no  complaint.  But  I  insist  that 
that  relation,  after  all,  does  not  embrace  more 
than  one  eighth  of  the  labor  of  the  country. 

[The  speaker  proceeded  to  argue  that  the 
hired  laborer,  zvith  his  ability  to  become  an  em- 
ployer, must  have  every  precedence  over  him 
who  labors  under  inducements  of  force.  He 
continued:] 

I  have  taken  upon  myself,  in  the  name  of  some 
of  you,  to  say  that  we  expect  upon  these  prin- 
ciples to  ultimately  beat  them.  In  order  to  do 
so,  I  think  we  want  and  must  have  a  national 
policy  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  that 
acknowledges  and  deals  with  that  institution  as 
being  wrong.  Whoever  desires  the  prevention 
of  the  spread  of  slavery  and  the  nationalization 
of  that  institution,  yields  all  when  he  yields  to 
any  policy  that  either  recognizes  slavery  as  being 
right,  or  as  being  an  indifferent  thing.  Nothing 
will  make  you  successful  but  setting  up  a  policy 
which  shall  treat  the  thing  as  being  wrong. 
When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this 
General  Government  is  charged  with  the  duty  of 
redressing  or  preventing  all  the  wrongs  in  the 
world ;  but  I  do  think  that  it  is  charged  with  pre- 
venting and  redressing  all  wrongs  which  are 
wrongs  to  itself.  This  government  is  expressly 
charged  with  the  duty  of  providing  for  the 
general  welfare.  We  believe  that  the  spreading 
out  and  perpetuity  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
impairs  the  general  welfare.  We  believe — nay, 
we  know — that  that  is  the  only  thing  that  has 
ever  threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  it- 
self.    The  only  thing  which  has  ever  menaced 


274 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  17 


the  destruction  of  the  government  under  which 
we  Hve,  is  this  very  thing.  To  repress  this 
thing,  we  think,  is  providing  for  the  general  wel- 
fare. Our  friends  in  Kentucky  differ  from  us. 
We  need  not  make  our  argument  for  them ;  but 
we  who  think  it  is  wrong  in  all  its  relations,  or 
in  some  of  them  at  least,  must  decide  as  to  our 
own  actions,  and  our  own  course,  upon  our  own 
judgment. 

I  say  that  we  must  not  interfere  with  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists, 
because  the  Constitution  forbids  it,  and  the 
general  welfare  does  not  require  us  to  do  so. 
We  must  not  withhold  an  efficient  fugitive-slave 
law,  because  the  Constitution  requires  us,  as  I 
understand  it,  not  to  withhold  such  a  law.  But 
we  must  prevent  the  outspreading  of  the  institu- 
tion, because  neither  the  Constitution  nor  general 
welfare  requires  us  to  extend  it.  We  must  pre- 
vent the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  and 
the  enacting  by  Congress  of  a  territorial  slave- 
code.  We  must  prevent  each  of  these  things 
being  done  by  either  congresses  or  courts.  The 
people  of  these  United  States  are  the  rightful 
masters  of  both  congresses  and  courts,  not  to 
overthrow  the  Constitution,  but  to  overthrow 
the  men  who  pervert  the  Constitution. 

To  do  these  things  we  must  employ  instru- 
mentalities. We  must  hold  conventions ;  we 
must  adopt  platforms,  if  we  conform  to  ordinary 
custom ;  we  must  nominate  candidates ;  and  we 
must  carry  elections.  In  all  these  things,  I  think 
that  we  ought  to  keep  in  view  our  real  purpose, 
and  in  none  do  anything  that  stands  adverse  to 
our  purpose.  If  we  shall  adopt  a  platform  that 
fails   to   recognize   or   express   our  purpose,   or 


i859]  AT  CINCINNATI  275 

elect  a  man  that  declares  himself  inimical  to  our 
purpose,  we  not  only  take  nothing  by  our  suc- 
cess, but  we  tacitly  admit  that  we  act  upon  no 
other  principle  than  a  desire  to  have  ''the  loaves 
and  fishes,"  by  which,  in  the  end,  our  apparent 
success  is  really  an  injury  to  us. 

I  know  that  it  is  very  desirable  with  me,  as 
with  everybody  else,  that  all  the  elements  of  the 
Opposition  shall  unite  in  the  next  presidential 
election,  and  in  all  future  time.  I  am  anxious 
that  that  should  be,  but  there  are  things  seriously 
to  be  considered  in  relation  to  that  matter.  If 
the  terms  can  be  arranged,  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
union.  But  suppose  we  shall  take  up  some  man, 
and  put  him  upon  one  end  or  the  other  of  the 
ticket,  who  declares  himself  against  us  in  regard 
to  the  prevention  of  the  spread  of  slavery,  who 
turns  up  his  nose  and  says  he  is  tired  of  hearing 
anything  more  about  it,  who  is  more  against  us 
than  against  the  enemy — what  will  be  the  issue? 
Why,  he  will  get  no  slave  States  after  all — he 
has  tried  that  already  until  being  beat  is  the  rule 
for  him.  If  we  nominate  him  upon  that  ground, 
he  will  not  carry  a  slave  State,  and  not  only  so, 
but  that  portion  of  our  men  who  are  high-strung 
upon  the  principle  we  really  fight  for  will  not  go 
for  him,  and  he  won't  get  a  single  electoral  vote 
anywhere,  except,  perhaps,  in  the  State  of  Mary- 
land. There  is  no  use  in  saying  to  us  that  we 
are  stubborn  and  obstinate  because  we  won't  do 
some  such  thing  as  this.  We  cannot  do  it.  We 
cannot  get  our  men  to  vote  it.  I  speak  by  the 
card,  that  we  cannot  give  the  State  of  Illinois  in 
such  case  by  fifty  thousand.  We  would  be  flat- 
ter down  than  the  ''Negro  Democracy"  them- 
selves have  the  heart  to  wish  to  see  us. 


276  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

After  saying  this  much,  let  me  say  a  little  on 
the  other  side.  There  are  plenty  of  men  in  the 
slave  States  that  are  altogether  good  enough  for 
me  to  be  either  President  or  Vice-President,  pro- 
vided they  will  profess  their  sympathy  with  our 
purpose,  and  will  place  themselves  on  such 
ground  that  our  men,  upon  principle,  can  vote 
for  them.  There  are  scores  of  them — good  men 
in  their  character  for  intelligence,  and  talent, 
and  integrity.  If  such  an  one  will  place  himself 
upon  the  right  ground,  I  am  for  his  occupying 
one  place  upon  the  next  Republican  or  Opposi- 
tion ticket.  I  will  heartily  go  for  him.  But  un- 
less he  does  so  place  himself,  I  think  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  perfect  nonsense  to  attempt  to  bring  about 
a  union  upon  any  other  basis ;  that  if  a  union  be 
made,  the  elements  will  scatter  so  that  there  can 
be  no  success  for  such  a  ticket,  nor  anything  like 
success.  The  good  old  maxims  of  the  Bible  are 
applicable,  and  truly  applicable,  to  human 
affairs,  and  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  we  may 
say  here  that  he  who  is  not  for  us  is  against  us ; 
he  who  gathereth  not  with  us  scattereth.  I 
should  be  glad  to  have  some  of  the  many  good, 
and  able,  and  noble  men  of  the  South  to  place 
themselves  where  we  can  confer  upon  them  the 
high  honor  of  an  election  upon  one  or  the 
other  end  of  our  ticket.  It  would  do  my  soul 
good  to  do  that  thing.  It  would  enable  us  to 
teach  them  that,  inasmuch  as  we  select  one  of 
their  own  number  to  carry  out  our  principles,  we 
are  free  from  the  charge  that  we  mean  more 
than  we  say. 

But,  my  friends,  I  have  detained  you  much 
longer  than  I  expected  to  do.  I  believe  I  may 
allow   myself  the   cornpliment   to   say   that   you 


i8s93  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  277 

have  stayed  and  heard  me  with  great  patience, 
for  which  I  return  you  my  most  sincere  thanks. 


The  Advantages  of  "Thorough  Cultivation," 
and  the  Fallacies  of  the  "Mud-sill"  Theory 
of  Labor's  Subjection  to  Capital. 

Address  before  the  Wisconsin  State  Agri- 
cultural Society,  at  Milwaukee.  Sep- 
tember 30,  1859. 

Members  of  the  Agricultural  Society  and 
Citizens  of  Wisconsin:  Agricultural  fairs  are  be- 
coming an  institution  of  the  country.  They  are 
useful  in  more  ways  than  one.  They  bring  us 
together,  and  thereby  make  us  better  acquainted 
and  better  friends  than  we  otherwise  would  be. 
From  the  first  appearance  of  man  upon  the  earth 
down  to  very  recent  times,  the  words  "stranger" 
and  "enemy"  were  quite  or  almost  synonymous. 
Long  after  civilized  nations  had  defined  robbery 
and  murder  as  high  crimes,  and  had  afiixed 
severe  punishments  to  them,  when  practiced 
among  and  upon  their  own  people  respectively, 
it  was  deemed  no  oifense,  but  even  meritorious, 
to  rob  and  murder  and  enslave  strangers, 
whether  as  nations  or  as  individuals.  Even  yet, 
this  has  not  totally  disappeared.  The  man  of 
the  highest  moral  cultivation,  in  spite  of  all 
which  abstract  principle  can  do,  likes  him  whom 
he  does  know  much  better  than  him  whom  he 
does  not  know.  To  correct  the  evils,  great  and 
small,  which  spring  from  want  of  sympathy  and 
from  positive  enmity  among  strangers,  as  nations 
or  as  individuals,  is  one  of  the  highest  functions 
of   civilization.      To   this    end   our   agricultural 


278  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

fairs  contribute  in  no  small  degree.  They  ren- 
der more  pleasant,  and  more  strong,  and  more 
durable  the  bond  of  social  and  political  union 
among  us.  Again,  if,  as  Pope  declares,  ''happi- 
ness is  our  being's  end  and  aim,"  our  fairs  con- 
tribute much  to  that  end  and  aim,  as  occasions  of 
recreation,  as  holidays.  Constituted  as  man  is, 
he  has  positive  need  of  occasional  recreation,  and 
whatever  can  give  him  this  associated  with  virtue 
and  advantage,  and  free  from  vice  and  disad- 
vantage, is  a  positive  good.  Such  recreation 
our  fairs  afford.  They  are  a  present  pleasure, 
to  be  followed  by  no  pain  as  a  consequence ;  they 
are  a  present  pleasure,  making  the  future  more 
pleasant. 

But  the  chief  use  of  agricultural  fairs  is  to  aid 
in  improving  the  great  calling  of  agriculture  in 
all  its  departments  and  minute  divisions ;  to 
make  mutual  exchange  of  agricultural  dis- 
covery, information,  and  knowledge ;  so  that,  at 
the  end,  all  may  know  everything  which  may 
have  been  known  to  but  one  or  to  but  few,  at  the 
beginning;  to  bring  together  especially  all  which 
is  supposed  to  be  not  generally  known  because 
of  recent  discovery  or  invention. 

And  not  only  to  bring  together  and  to  impart 
all  which  has  been  accidentally  discovered  and 
invented  upon  ordinary  motive,  but  by  exciting 
emulation  for  premiums,  and  for  the  pride  and 
honor  of  success, — of  triumph,  in  some  sort, — to 
stimulate  that  discovery  and  invention  into  ex- 
traordinary activity.  In  this  these  fairs  are  kin- 
dred to  the  patent  clause  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  the  department  and 
practical  system  based  upon  that  clause. 

One    feature,    I    believe,    of  every    fair    is    9. 


1859]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  279 

regular  address.  The  Agricultural  Society  of 
the  young,  prosperous,  and  soon  to  be  great 
State  of  Wisconsin  has  done  me  the  high  honor 
of  selecting  me  to  make  that  address  upon  this 
occasion — an  honor  for  which  I  make  my  pro- 
found and  grateful  acknowledgment. 

I  presume  I  am  not  expected  to  employ  the 
time  assigned  me  in  the  mere  flattery  of  the 
farmers  as  a  class.  My  opinion  of  them  is  that, 
in  proportion  to  numbers,  they  are  neither  better 
nor  worse  than  other  people.  In  the  nature  of 
things  they  are  more  numerous  than  any  other 
class ;  and  I  believe  there  really  are  more  at- 
tempts at  flattering  them  than  any  other,  the 
reason  of  which  I  cannot  perceive,  unless  it  be 
that  they  can  cast  more  votes  than  any  other. 
On  reflection,  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  there  is 
not  cause  of  suspicion  against  you  in  selecting 
miC,  in  some  sort  a  politician  and  in  no  sort  a 
farmer,  to  address  you. 

But  farmers  being  the  most  numerous  class, 
it  follows  that  their  interest  is  the  largest 
interest.  It  also  follows  that  that  interest  is 
most  worthy  of  all  to  be  cherished  and  cultivated 
— that  if  there  be  inevitable  conflict  between  that 
interest  and  any  other,  that  other  should  yield. 

Again,  I  suppose  it  is  not  expected  of  me  to 
impart  to  you  much  specific  information  on 
agriculture.  You  have  no  reason  to  believe,  and 
do  not  believe,  that  I  possess  it;  if  that  were 
v^hat  you  seek  in  this  address,  any  one  of  your 
own  number  or  class  would  be  more  able  to 
furnish  it.  You,  perhaps,  do  expect  me  to  give 
some  general  interest  to  the  occasion,  and  to 
make  some  general  suggestions  on  practical  mat- 
ters.    I    shall   attempt   nothing   more.     And    in 


28o 


SPEECHES 


[Sept.  30 


such  suggestions  by  me,  quite  likely  very  little 
will  be  new  to  you,  and  a  large  part  of  the  rest 
will  be  possibly  already  known  to  be  erroneous. 

My  first  suggestion  is  an  inquiry  as  to  the 
effect  of  greater  thoroughness  in  all  the  depart- 
ments of  agriculture  than  now  prevails  in  the 
Northwest — perhaps  I  might  say  in  America. 
To  speak  entirely  within  bounds,  it  is  known  that 
fifty  bushels  of  wheat,  or  one  hundred  bushels  of 
Indian  corn,  can  be  produced  from  an  acre. 
Less  than  a  year  ago  I  saw  it  stated  that  a  man, 
by  extraordinary  care  and  labor,  had  produced 
of  wheat  what  was  equal  to  two  hundred  bushels 
from  an  acre.  But  take  fifty  of  wheat,  and  one 
hundred  of  corn,  to  be  the  possibility,  and  com- 
pare it  with  the  actual  crops  of  the  country. 
Many  years  ago  I  saw  it  stated,  in  a  patent-office 
report,  that  eighteen  bushels  was  the  average 
crop  throughout  the  United  States ;  and  this 
year  an  intelligent  farmer  of  Illinois  assured  me 
that  he  did  not  believe  the  land  harvested  in  that 
State  this  season  had  yielded  more  than  an  aver- 
age of  eight  bushels  to  the  acre ;  much  was  cut, 
and  then  abandoned  as  not  worth  threshing,  and 
much  was  abandoned  as  not  worth  cutting.  As 
to  Indian  corn,  and  indeed,  most  other  crops, 
the  case  has  not  been  much  better.  For  the  last 
four  years  I  do  not  believe  the  ground  planted 
with  corn  in  Illinois  has  produced  an  average  of 
twenty  bushels  to  the  acre.  It  is  true  that-  here- 
tofore we  have  had  better  crops  with  no  better 
cultivation,  but  I  believe  it  is  also  true  that  the 
soil  has  never  been  pushed  up  to  one  half  of  its 
capacity. 

What  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  farming 
interest  to  push  the  soil  up  to  something  near  its 


i8s9]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  281 

full  capacity?  Unquestionably  it  will  take  more 
labor  to  produce  fifty  bushels  from  an  acre  than 
it  will  to  produce  ten  bushels  from  the  same 
acre ;  but  will  it  take  more  labor  to  produce  fifty 
bushels  from  one  acre  than  from  five?  Unques- 
tionably thorough  cultivation  will  require  more 
labor  to  the  acre ;  but  will  it  require  more  to  the 
bushel?  If  it  should  require  just  as  much  to  the 
bushel,  there  are  some  probable,  and  several  cer- 
tain, advantages  in  favor  of  the  thorough 
practice.  It  is  probable  it  would  develop  those 
unknown  causes  which  of  late  years  have  cut 
down  our  crops  below  their  former  average.  It 
is  almost  certain,  I  think,  that  by  deeper  plow- 
ing, analysis  of  the  soils,  experiments  with 
manures  and  varieties  of  seeds,  observance  of 
seasons,  and  the  like,  these  causes  would  be  dis- 
covered and  remedied.  It  is  certain  that 
thorough  cultivation  would  spare  half,  or  more 
than  half,  the  cost  of  land,  simply  because  the 
same  produce  would  be  got  from  half,  or  from 
less  than  half,  the  quantity  of  land.  This  prop- 
osition is  self-evident,  and  can  be  made  no 
plainer  by  repetitions  or  illustrations.  The  cost 
of  land  is  a  great  item,  even  in  new  countries, 
and  it  constantly  grows  greater  and  greater,  in 
comparison  with  other  items,  as  the  country 
grows  older. 

It  also  would  spare  the  making  and  maintain- 
ing of  inclosures  for  the  same,  whether  these  in- 
closures  should  be  hedges,  ditches,  or  fences. 
This  again  is  a  heavy  item — heavy  at  first,  and 
heavy  in  its  continual  demand  for  repairs.  I  re- 
member once  being  greatly  astonished  by  an 
apparently  authentic  exhibition  of  the  proportion 
the  cost  of  an  inclosure  bears  to  all  the  other 


282  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

expenses  of  the  farmer,  though  I  cannot  remem- 
ber exactly  what  that  proportion  was.  Any 
farmer,  if  he  will,  can  ascertain  it  in  his  own 
case  for  himself. 

Again,  a  great  amount  of  locomotion  is  spared 
by  thorough  cultivation.  Take  fifty  bushels  of 
wheat  ready  for  harvest,  standing  upon  a  single 
acre,  and  it  can  be  harvested  in  any  of  the 
known  ways  with  less  than  half  the  labor  which 
would  be  required  if  it  were  spread  over  five 
acres.  This  would  be  true  if  cut  by  the  old 
hand-sickle ;  true,  to  a  greater  extent,  if  by  the 
scythe  and  cradle ;  and  to  a  still  greater  extent, 
if  by  the  machines  now  in  use.  These  machines 
are  chiefly  valuable  as  a  means  of  substituting 
animal-power  for  the  power  of  men  in  this 
branch  of  farm-work.  In  the  highest  degree  of 
perfection  yet  reached  in  applying  the  horse- 
power to  harvesting,  fully  nine  tenths  of  the 
power  is  expended  by  the  animal  in  carrying 
himself  and  dragging  the  machine  over  the  field, 
leaving  certainly  not  more  than  one  tenth  to  be 
applied  directly  to  the  only  end  of  the  whole 
operation — the  gathering  in  of  the  grain,  and 
clipping  of  the  straw.  When  grain  is  very  thin 
on  the  ground,  it  is  always  more  or  less  inter- 
mingled with  weeds,  chess,  and  the  like,  and  a 
large  part  of  the  power  is  expended  in  cutting 
these.  It  is  plain  that  when  the  crop  is  very 
thick  upon  the  ground,  a  larger  proportion  of 
the  power  is  directly  applied  to  gathering  in  and 
cutting  it ;  and  the  smaller  to  that  which  is  totally 
useless  as  an  end.  And  what  I  have  said  of 
harvesting  is  true  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  of 
mowing,  plowing,  gathering  in  of  crops  gener- 
ally, and  indeed  of  almost  all  farm-work. 


i859i  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  283 

The  e^ect  of  thorough  cultivation  upon  the 
farmer's  own  mind,  and  in  reaction  through  his 
mind  back  upon  his  business,  is  perhaps  quite 
equal  to  any  other  of  its  efifects.  Every  man  is 
proud  of  what  he  does  well,  and  no  man  is  proud 
of  that  he  does  not  well.  With  the  former  his 
heart  is  in  his  work,  and  he  will  do  twice  as 
much  of  it  with  less  fatigue;  the  latter  he  per- 
forms a  little  imperfectly,  looks  at  it  in  disgust, 
turns  from  it,  and  imagines  himself  exceedingly 
tired — the  little  he  has  done  comes  to  nothing 
for  want  of  finishing. 

The  man  who  produces  a  good  full  crop  will 
scarcely  ever  let  any  part  of  it  go  to  waste ;  he 
will  keep  up  the  inclosure  about  it,  and  allow 
neither  man  nor  beast  to  trespass  upon  it ;  he 
will  gather  it  in  due  season,  and  store  it  in  per- 
fect security.  Thus  he  labors  with  satisfaction, 
and  saves  himself  the  whole  fruit  of  his  labor. 
The  other,  starting  with  no  purpose  for  a  full 
crop,  labors  less,  and  with  less  satisfaction,  al- 
lows his  fences  to  fall,  and  cattle  to  trespass, 
gathers  not  in  due  season,  or  not  at  all.  Thus 
the  labor  he  has  performed  is  wasted  away,  little 
by  little,  till  in  the  end  he  derives  scarcely  any- 
thing from  it. 

The  ambition  for  broad  acres  leads  to  poor 
farming,  even  with  men  of  energy.  I  scarcely 
ever  knew  a  mammoth  farm  to  sustain  itself, 
much  less  to  return  a  profit  upon  the  outlay.  I 
have  more  than  once  known  a  man  to  spend  a 
respectable  fortune  upon  one,  fail,  and  leave  it, 
and  then  some  man  of  modest  aims  get  a  small 
fraction  of  the  ground,  and  make  a  good  living 
upon  it.  Mammoth  farms  are  like  tools  or 
weapons   which   are  too  heavy  to  be   handled ; 


284  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

erelong    they    are    thrown    aside    at    a    great 
loss. 

The  successful  application  of  steam-power  to 
farm-work  is  a  desideratum — especially  a  steam- 
plow.  It  is  not  enough  that  a  machine  operated 
by  steam  will  really  plow.  To  be  successful,  it 
must,  all  things  considered,  plow  better  than  can 
be  done  with  animal-power.  It  must  do  all  the 
work  as  well,  and  cheaper ;  or  more  rapidly,  so 
as  to  get  through  more  perfectly  in  season ;  or  in 
some  way  afford  an  advantage  over  plowing 
with  animals,  else  it  is  no  success.  I  have  never 
seen  a  machine  intended  for  a  steam-plow. 
Much  praise  and  admiration  are  bestowed  upon 
some  of  them,  and  they  may  be,  for  aught  I 
know,  already  successful ;  but  I  have  not  per- 
ceived the  demonstration  of  it.  I  have  thought 
a  good  deal,  in  an  abstract  way,  about  a  steam- 
plow.  That  one  which  shall  be  so  contrived  as 
to  apply  the  larger  proportion  of  its  power  to  the 
cutting  and  turning  the  soil,  and  the  smallest,  to 
the  moving  itself  over  the  field,  will  be  the  best 
one.  A  very  small  stationary-engine  would 
draw  a  large  gang  of  plows  through  the  ground 
from  a  short  distance  to  itself;  but  when  it  is 
not  stationary,  but  has  to  move  along  like  a 
horse,  dragging  the  plows  after  it,  it  must  have 
additional  power  to  carry  itself;  and  the  diffi- 
culty grows  by  what  is  intended  to  overcome  it; 
for  what  adds  power  also  adds  size  and  weight 
to  the  machine,  thus  increasing  again  the  de- 
mand for  power.  Suppose  you  construct  the 
machine  so  as  to  cut  a  succession  of  short  fur- 
rows, say  a  rod  in  length,  transversely  to  the 
course  the  machine  is  locomoting,  something 
like  the  shuttle  in  weaving.     In  such  case  the 


1859]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  285 

whole  machine  would  move  north  only  the  width 
of  a  furrow,  while  in  length  the  furrow  would  be 
a  rod  from  east  to  west.  In  such  case  a  very 
large  proportion  of  the  power  would  be  applied 
to  the  actual  plowing.  But  in  this,  too,  there 
would  be  difficulty,  which  would  be  the  getting 
of  the  plow  into  and  out  of  the  ground,  at  the 
end  of  all  these  short  furrows. 

I  believe,  however,  ingenious  men  will,  if  they 
have  not  already,  overcome  the  difficulty  I  have 
suggested.  But  there  is  still  another,  about 
which  I  am  less  sanguine.  It  is  the  supply  of 
fuel,  and  especially  water,  to  make  steam. 
Such  supply  is  clearly  practicable ;  but  can  the 
expense  of  it  be  borne?  Steamboats  live  upon 
the  water,  and  find  their  fuel  at  stated  places. 
Steam-mills  and  other  stationary  steam-ma- 
chinery have  their  stationary  supplies  of  fuel 
and  water.  Railroad-locomotives  have  their 
regular  wood  and  water  stations.  But  the 
steam-plow  is  less  fortunate.  It  does  not  live 
upon  the  water,  and  if  it  be  once  at  a  water-sta- 
tion, it  will  work  away  from  it,  and  when  it  gets 
away  cannot  return  without  leaving  its  work,  at 
a  great  expense  of  its  time  and  strength.  It  will 
occur  that  a  wagon-and-horse  team  might  be 
employed  to  supply  it  with  fuel  and  water ;  but 
this,  too,  is  expensive ;  and  the  question  recurs, 
"Can  the  expense  be  borne?"  When  this  is 
added  to  all  other  expenses,  will  not  plowing 
cost  more  than  in  the  old  way? 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  steam-plow  will  be 
finally  successful,  and  if  it  shall  be,  "thorough 
cultivation" — putting  the  soil  to  the  top  of  its 
capacity,  producing  the  largest  crop  possible 
from  a  given  quantity  of  ground — will  be  most 


286  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

favorable  for  it.  Doing  a  large  amount  of  work 
upon  a  small  quantity  of  ground,  it  will  be  as 
nearly  as  possible  stationary  while  Vv^orking,  and 
as  free  as  possible  from  locomotion,  thus  ex- 
pending its  strength  as  much  as  possible  upon  its 
work,  and  as  little  as  possible  in  traveling.  Our 
thanks,  and  something  more  substantial  than 
thanks,  are  due  to  every  man  engaged  in  the 
effort  to  produce  a  successful  steam-plow.  Even 
the  unsuccessful  will  bring  something  to  light 
which,  in  the  hands  of  others,  will  contribute  to 
the  final  success.  I  have  not  pointed  out  diffi- 
culties in  order  to  discourage,  but  in  order  that, 
being  seen,  they  may  be  the  more  readily  over- 
come. 

The  world  is  agreed  that  labor  is  the  source 
from  which  human  wants  are  mainly  supplied. 
There  is  no  dispute  upon  this  point.  From 
this  point,  however,  men  immediately  diverge. 
Much  disputation  is  maintained  as  to  the  best 
way  of  applying  and  controlling  the  labor  ele- 
ment. By  some  it  is  assumed  that  labor  is  avail- 
able only  in  connection  with  capital — that  no- 
body labors,  unless  somebody  else  owning 
capital,  somehow,  by  the  use  of  it,  induces  him 
to  do  it.  Having  assumed  this,  they  proceed  to 
consider  whether  it  is  best  that  capital  shall  hire 
laborers,  and  thus  induce  them  to  work  by  their 
own  consent,  or  buy  them,  and  drive  them  to  it, 
without  their  consent.  Having  proceeded  so 
far,  they  naturally  conclude  that  all  laborers  are 
naturally  either  hired  laborers  or  slaves.  They 
further  assume  that  whoever  is  once  a  hired 
laborer,  is  fatally  fixed  in  that  condition  for  life ; 
and  thence  again,  that  his  condition  is  as  bad  as, 
or   worse   than,  that  of   a   slave.     This   is   the 


i8s9J  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  287 

''mud-sill"  theory.  But  another  class  of  rea- 
soners  hold  the  opinion  that  there  is  no  such 
relation  between  capital  and  labor  as  assumed ; 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  free  man  being 
fatally  fixed  for  life  in  the  condition  of  a  hired 
laborer ;  that  both  these  assumptions  are  false, 
and  all  inferences  from  them  groundless.  They 
hold  that  labor  is  prior  to,  and  independent  of, 
capital ;  that,  in  fact,  capital  is  the  fruit  of  labor, 
and  could  never  have  existed  if  labor  had  not 
first  existed ;  that  labor  can  exist  without  capital, 
but  that  capital  could  never  have  existed  without 
labor.  Hence  they  hold  that  labor  is  the 
superior — greatly  the  superior — of  capital. 

They  do  not  deny  that  there  is,  and  probably 
always  will  be,  a  relation  between  labor  and 
capital.  The  error,  as  they  hold,  is  in  assuming 
that  the  whole  labor  of  the  world  exists  within 
that  relation.  A  few  men  own  capital ;  and  that 
few  avoid  labor  themselves,  and  with  their 
capital  hire  or  buy  another  few  to  labor  for  them. 
A  large  majority  belong  to  neither  class — 
neither  work  for  others,  nor  have  others  work- 
ing for  them.  Even  in  all  our  slave  States  ex- 
cept South  Carolina,  a  majority  of  the  whole 
people  of  all  colors  are  neither  slaves  nor  mas- 
ters. In  these  free  States,  a  large  majority  are 
neither  hirers  nor  hired.  Men,  with  their 
families — wives,  sons,  and  daughters — work  for 
themselves,  on  their  farms,  in  their  houses,  and 
in  their  shops,  taking  the  whole  product  to  them- 
selves, and  asking  no  favors  of  capital  on  the 
one  hand,  nor  of  hirelings  or  slaves  6n  the  other. 
It  is  not  forgotten  that  a  considerable  number  of 
persons  mingle  their  own  labor  with  capital — 
that  is,  labor  with  their  own  hands,  and  also  buy 


288  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

slaves  or  hire  free  men  to  labor  for  them ;  but 
this  is  only  a  mixed,  and  not  a  distinct,  class. 
No  principle  stated  is  disturbed  by  the  existence 
of  this  mixed  class.  Again,  as  has  already 
been  said,  the  opponents  of  the  "mud-sill"  theory 
insist  that  there  is  not,  of  necessity,  any  such 
thing  as  the  free  hired  laborer  being  fixed  to  that 
condition  for  life.  There  is  demonstration  for 
saying  this.  Many  independent  men  in  this  as- 
sembly doubtless  a  few  years  ago  were  hired 
laborers.  And  their  case  is  almost,  if  not  quite, 
the  general  rule. 

The  prudent,  penniless  beginner  in  the  world 
labors  for  wages  awhile,  saves  a  surplus  with 
which  to  buy  tools  or  land  for  himself,  then 
labors  on  his  own  account  another  while,  and  at 
length  hires  another  new  beginner  to  help  him. 
This,  say  its  advocates,  is  free  labor — the  just, 
and  generous,  and  prosperous  system,  which 
opens  the  way  for  all,  gives  hope  to  all,  and 
energy,  and  progress,  and  improvement  of  con- 
dition to  all.  If  any  continue  through  life  in  the 
condition  of  the  hired  laborer,  it  is  not  the  fault 
of  the  system,  but  because  of  either  a  dependent 
nature  which  prefers  it,  or  improvidence,  folly, 
or  singular  misfortune.  I  have  said  this  much 
about  the  elements  of  labor  generally,  as  intro- 
ductory to  the  consideration  of  a  new  phase 
which  that  element  is  in  process  of  assuming. 
The  old  general  rule  was  that  educated  people 
did  not  perform  manual  labor.  They  managed 
to  eat  their  bread,  leaving  the  toil  of  producing 
it  to  the  uneducated.  This  was  not  an  insup- 
portable evil  to  the  working  bees,  so  long  as  the 
class  of  drones  remained  very  small.  But  now, 
especially   in   these   free    States,   nearly   all   are 


i8s9]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  289 

educated — quite  too  nearly  all  to  leave  the  labor 
of  the  uneducated  in  any  wise  adequate  to  the 
support  of  the  whole.  It  follows  from  this  that 
henceforth  educated  people  must  labor.  Other- 
wise, education  itself  would  become  a  positive 
and  intolerable  evil.  No  country  can  sustain  in 
idleness  more  than  a  small  percentage  of  its 
numbers.  The  great  majority  must  labor  at 
something  productive.  From  these  premises  the 
problem  springs,  ''How  can  labor  and  education 
be  the  most  satisfactorily  combined?" 

By  the  "mud-sill"  theory"^  it  is  assumed  that 
labor  and  education  are  incompatible,  and  any 
practical  combination  of  them  impossible.  Ac- 
cording to  that  theory,  a  blind  horse  upon  a 
tread-mill  is  a  perfect  illustration  of  what  a 
laborer  should  be — all  the  better  for  being  blind, 
that  he  could  not  kick  understandingly.  Ac- 
cording to  that  theory,  the  education  of  laborers 
is  not  only  useless  but  pernicious  and  dangerous. 
In  fact,  it  is,  in  some  sort,  deemed  a  misfortune 
that  laborers  should  have  heads  at  all.  Those 
same  heads  are  regarded  as  explosive  materials, 
only  to  be  safely  kept  in  damp  places,  as  far  as 
possible  from  that  peculiar  sort  of  fire  which 
ignites  them.  A  Yankee  who  could  invent  a 
strong-handed  man  without  a  head  would  re- 
ceive the  everlasting  gratitude  of  the  "mud-sill" 
advocates. 

But  free  labor  says,  "No."  Free  labor  argues 
that  as  the  Author  of  man  makes  every  indi- 
vidual with  one  head  and  one  pair  of  hands,  it 

*  Enunciated  by  James  H.  Hammond,  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  1857  to  1861.  In  a  speech  in  the  Senate 
he  said  that  cultivated  society  necessarily  rested  on  an 
inferior  class,  that  of  labor,  just  as  a  house  stood  on  mud- 
sills :  that  is.,  sills  lying  directly  on  the  ground. 


290 


SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 


was  probably  intended  that  heads  and  hands 
should  cooperate  as  friends,  and  that  that  partic- 
ular head  should  direct  and  control  that  pair  of 
hands.  As  each  man  has  one  mouth  to  be  fed, 
and  one  pair  of  hands  to  furnish  food,  it  was 
probably  intended  that  that  particular  pair  of 
hands  should  feed  that  particular  mouth — that 
each  head  is  the  natural  guardian,  director,  and 
protector  of  the  hands  and  mouth  inseparably 
connected  with  it ;  and  that  being  so,  every  head 
should  be  cultivated  and  improved  by  whatever 
will  add  to  its  capacity  for  performing  its 
charge.  In  one  word,  free  labor  insists  on  uni- 
versal education. 

I  have  so  far  stated  the  opposite  theories  of 
"mud-sill"  and  "free  labor,"  without  declaring 
any  preference  of  my  own  between  them.  On 
an  occasion  like  this,  I  ought  not  to  declare  any. 
I  suppose,  however,  I  shall  not  be  mistaken  in 
assuming  as  a  fact  that  the  people  of  Wisconsin 
prefer  free  labor,  with  its  natural  companion, 
education. 

This  leads  to  the  further  reflection  that  no 
other  human  occupation  opens  so  wide  a  field  for 
the  profitable  and  agreeable  combination  of  labor 
with  cultivated  thought,  as  agriculture.  I  know 
nothing  so  pleasant  to  the  mind  as  the  discovery 
of  anything  that  is  at  once  new  and  valuable — 
nothing  that  so  lightens  and  sweetens  toil  as  the 
hopeful  pursuit  of  such  discovery.  And  how 
vast  and  how  varied  a  field  is  agriculture  for 
such  discovery !  The  mind,  already  trained  to 
thought  in  the  country  school,  or  higher  school, 
cannot  fail  to  find  there  an  exhaustless  source  of 
enjoyment.  Every  blade  of  grass  is  a  study; 
and  to  produce  two  where  there  was  but  one  is 


1859]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  291 

both  a  profit  and  a  pleasure.  And  not  grass 
alone,  but  soils,  seeds,  and  seasons — hedges, 
ditches,  and  fences — draining,  droughts,  and 
irrigation — plowing,  hoeing,  and  harrowing — 
reaping,  mowing,  and  threshing — saving  crops, 
pests  of  crops,  diseases  of  crops,  and  what  will 
prevent  or  cure  them — implements,  utensils,  and 
machines,  their  relative  merits,  and  how  to  im- 
prove them — hogs,  horses,  and  cattle — sheep, 
goats,  and  poultry — trees,  shrubs,  fruits,  plants, 
and  flowers — the  thousand  things  of  which  these 
are  specimens — each  a  world  of  study  within 
itself. 

In  all  this,  book-learning  is  available.  A 
capacity  and  taste  for  reading  gives  access  to 
whatever  has  already  been  discovered  by  others. 
It  is  the  key,  or  one  of  the  keys,  to  the  already 
solved  problems.  And  not  only  so :  it  gives  a 
relish  and  facility  for  successfully  pursuing  the 
unsolved  ones.  The  rudiments  of  science  are 
available,  and  highly  available.  Some  knowl- 
edge of  botany  assists  in  dealing  with  the  vege- 
table world — with  all  growing  crops.  Chemistry 
assists  in  the  analysis  of  soils,  selection  and  ap- 
plication of  manures,  and  in  numerous  other 
ways.  The  mechanical  branches  of  natural 
philosophy  are  ready  help  in  almost  everything, 
but  especially  in  reference  to  implements  and 
machinery. 

The  thought  recurs  that  education — cultivated 
thought — can  best  be  combined  with  agricultural 
labor,  or  any  labor,  on  the  principle  of  thorough 
work;  that  careless,  half-performed,  slovenly 
work  makes  no  place  for  such  combination ;  and 
thorough  work,  again,  renders  sufficient  the 
smallest  quantity  of  ground  to  each  man ;  and 


292  SPEECHES  [Sept.  30 

this,  again,  conforms  to  what  must  occur  in  a 
world  less  inclined  to  wars  and  more  devoted  to 
the  arts  of  peace  than  heretofore.  Population 
must  increase  rapidly,  more  rapidly  than  in 
former  times,  and  erelong  the  most  valuable  of 
all  arts  will  be  the  art  of  deriving  a  comfortable 
subsistence  from  the  smallest  area  of  soil.  No 
community  whose  every  member  possesses  this 
art,  can  ever  be  the  victim  of  oppression  in  any 
of  its  forms.  Such  community  will  be  alike 
independent  of  crowned  kings,  money  kings,  and 
land  kings. 

But,  according  to  your  programme,  the  award- 
ing of  premiums  awaits  the  closing  of  this 
address.  Considering  the  deep  interest  neces- 
sarily pertaining  to  that  performance,  it  would 
be  no  wonder  if  I  am  already  heard  with  some 
impatience.  I  will  detain  you  but  a  moment 
longer.  Some  of  you  will  be  successful,  and 
such  will  need  but  little  philosophy  to  take  them 
home  in  cheerful  spirits ;  others  will  be  disap- 
pointed, and  will  be  in  a  less  happy  mood.  To 
such  let  it  be  said,  ''Lay  it  not  too  much  to 
heart."  Let  them  adopt  the  maxim,  ''Better 
luck  next  time,"  and  then  by  renewed  exertion 
make  that  better  luck  for  themselves. 

And  by  the  successful  and  unsuccessful  let  it 
be  remembered  that  while  occasions  like  the 
present  bring  their  sober  and  durable  benefits, 
the  exultations  and  mortifications  of  them  arc 
but  temporary ;  that  the  victor  will  soon  be  van- 
quished if  he  relax  in  his  exertion ;  and  that  the 
vanquished  this  year  may  be  victor  the  next,  in 
spite  of  all  competition. 

It  is  said  an  Eastern  monarch  once  charged 
his  wise  men  to  invent  him  a  sentence  to  be  ever 


i8s9]  AGRICULTURAL  ADDRESS  293 

in  view,  and  which  should  be  true  and  appropri- 
ate in  all  times  and  situations.  They  presented 
him  the  words,  "And  this,  too,  shall  pass  away." 
How  much  it  expresses !  How  chastening  in  the 
hour  of  pride !  How  consoling  in  the  depths  of 
affliction!  "And  this,  too,  shall  pass  away." 
And  yet,  let  us  hope,  it  is  not  quite  true.  Let  us 
hope,  rather,  that  by  the  best  cultivation  of  the 
physical  world  beneath  and  around  us,  and  the 
intellectual  and  moral  world  within  us,  we  shall 
secure  an  individual,  social,  and  political  pros- 
perity and  happiness,  whose  course  shall  be  on- 
ward and  upward,  and  which,  while  the  earth 
endures,  shall  not  pass  away. 


